They certainly got it right that the main difference between air and vacuum is that dust hangs and billows in air. I suspect that the parts about the difficulty of getting dust-free sand to work the way you want are right too.

What you're doing is avoiding the question. Were they right when they said that just transporting and placing dust-free sand will cause enough erosion to create enough dust to form a dust cloud when the dust is driven over?

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1194111920

A pillow slip hung over a light is hardly a valid test, Dave. Regarding the 'objectivity test' I am not a geologist and haven't researched or been involved in that particular area so without researching it first, I couldn't tell you who was right.

What if people seriously don't know? Is it impossible to have a neutral position?


In other words, it doesn't matter if what they are saying uses verifiable facts and is backed up by multiple sources, if they don't agree with you they must be lying!

I knew they were wrong right away. I explained the issue to some people with backgrounds in geology. They thought it was so basic that they laughed.

This one said he knew from experience that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...ge=8#1180473413

He's obviously lying.

Now it's clear that those people who responded are not to be taken seriously when they analyze Apollo. That's why I'm asking all the pro-Apollo people on this thread to respond to this.

What pro-Apollo people usually do is either give non-commital answers or lay low until this discussion ends and then go on as if it had never been brought up.

I'll save David the trouble here. You are obviously avoiding the issue. You don't want to say they are wrong because you can't go against the government line (all those people work for the government according to David and now you of course, no evidence, just take his word for it). Because you avoided the issue (it is impossible according to David to be neutral even if you really don't know!) you look silly and obviously don't even believe what you are saying.

Does that pretty much sum it up David?

David's "objectivity" test is hardly objective. If you agree with him, then you might be objective (but not always, he could find something else to disagree with you on) and it gives him ammunition to comdemn an entire forum of unrelated people. If you disagree with him then you are a government shill/plant/liar and don't believe what you are saying and therefore can't be taken seriously.

This is such a basic fact that teenage science students would laugh at it.

The only thing that matters here is what the viewers think. Anyone who has doubts about this can go ask a geology professor at a university, or any high school science teacher.

The point is that those people on that thread had science backgrounds.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1194111920

They were lying. You seem to be trying to obfuscate that. Anyone with a science background who doesn't simply say they were wrong is not to be taken seriously when he or she analyzes Apollo.

So would you care to describe your pillow-slip experiment so I can duplicate it and see how it compares to a waving flag?

Somehow I doubt that but
If the issue is so basic, then it should be written in textbooks and geology websites as a basic fact of geology. Can you show that to be so?

It seems to me that if geologists believe this, David could link us to a quote of a geologist saying it.

One would think so. Especially if it is such a basic fact that people laugh when they hear of someone that doesn't know it.

I never thought about it that way...a reptilian substitute!
Maybe that was Glynn Lunney...

I always thought he was a little reptilian!
Maybe it was Chris Kraft...

Either one of those fellows might bite my head off in somewhat crocodile-like fashion if they heard me say this, and they find me...(or, if you screwed up more than once... ).

I probably shouldn't have said that...

...help!

Welcome to you, Major!

This is so basic that it's not necessary to describe it. Anyone can just ask a science teacher.


I see you didn't answer my question about the dust-free sand.

I hanged a pillow slip from a coat hanger with clothespins and walked by it at about the same distance at about the same speed. It moved at the same moment the flag moved and kept moving. Atmosphere doesn't have such a significant dampening effect when the flag is only oscillating an inch or so.

How is anybody supposed to take you seriously if you don't answer the question?

Were these people right, or wrong when they insisted that just transporting and placing dust-free sand will cause enough erosion to create enough sand to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over?

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1194111920

Nice cop-out but it doesn't quite work that way. You have previously claimed it was so basic that anyone should know it. Now one should ask a science teacher? If one may need to ask a science teacher (meaning it is not so basic that everyone should just know it), then why would people with a geology background laugh at the fact that some people didn't know it? Face it David, you are being caught in your lies.

Postbaguk says he found out they were wrong by asking on a geology forum. The thread where he actually did this disappeared from the forum but he made a reference to it on the new Loose Change moon thread.

It's the third post from the top here.
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...19386&st=60

Ask him to provide the information. He acknowledged that those people were wrong after having spoken to a geologist on a geology forum. He can tell you all about it.

And how would a science teacher know unless he was taught it at some point? Shouldn't it be spelled out in a textbook somewhere? Or maybe it is not as basic as you are trying to make us believe.

And you still called him a shill and those on the geology forum plants because they said they didn't think a layman should be expected to know it and that disagreed with you. Now you are using it as evidence for your case? Hilarious!!!

It's your argument. You should be able to supply the information.


Could you describe your pillow-slip experiment, please?

Just as I and others knew straight away how to interpret the rooster tails video. And that "Jack White's mystery object" was a partial bootprint. To me, they were basic issues.

When you get something wrong and admit it, you get praise for your honesty. I've yet to see you extend that courtesy to anyone else.

Good grief. Almost anyone should know it but I said that those that do have doubts should ask a science teacher. You're playing games here. If you were an objective truth-seeker, you would have simply said they were wrong when first asked--that goes for the rest of the people who have responded so far too. You all seem to have some science backgrounds, therefore you should have enough common sense to know that just transporting and placing dust-free sand will not cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust-could when the sand is driven over. You all should be talking about why the people on this thread lied.

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1194111920

You can pretend all you want but your credibility is going down the drain. That goes for the people who surface later and pretend this discussion never took place too.

Hey postbaguk--

Could you explain to him what you said you had explained to you on the geology forum?


I did--in post #3264.


You're being pretty simplistic here. I wish the thread where all this took place were still online so I could just show you.
I kept asking him to answer the question and he lamely kept saying he didn't know. He knew he was losing credibility in the eyes of the viewers so I guess you people held a meeting and decided the best way to control the damage was to have one of your friends say they were wrong but mistaken--not lying. This is ridiculous as those people have backgrounds in science. One of them even said he knew from experience that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when driven over.

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...ge=8#1180473413

The point is that someone from your group said that they were wrong.

Postbaguk--
Please explain to them what you learned on that geology forum.

David C,
You have been told not to bring your arguments from other forums here. You continue to ignore the instructions of moderators, a reminder of the rules on that:

By repeating the same point over and over again you are now spamming the site.
This will stop NOW. It will happen one of two ways,

1. You will heed this post and discontinue to spam the site through youe own choice.
2. You will stop spamming as a result of moderator action.

I would suggest the former... it's your choice.

The people who replied (about 5 or 6 IIRC) agreed with you that they didn't think dust would be created. One stated he didn't think it was something a layperson would be expected to know. You labelled him as a government shill. My question back to you David, is why do you automatically believe the opinion of experts who agree with your position, and label ones who don't as shills?

What I didn't ask, and possibly should have, is whether any of them had any actual experience of this, or whether they came to their conclusion by means of a "thought experiment" for want of a better phrase. In other words, was it purely an intellectual exercise or did they have practical experience of this? Is it dependent on the type of sand used? Exactly how much agitation and abrasion in caused? If the sand is placed in position by hoppers and chutes, or just dumped out of the back of a truck, would this make a difference?

I don't know - and for the zillionth time, I don't really care. Anyone's posts on Apollo can be critically examined and shown to be true or false without requiring a loaded "objectivity test", where one person sits as judge, jury and executioner.

Sorry, I missed it before.




How was the coat hanger attached to the lamp? Was it a floor lamp? How many oscillations did you see? How long did they last until you detected no movement? Was the first movement towards or away from you? Coat hangers are pretty springy, and may add their own oscillations; did you try something stiffer, like a curtain rod?

Calling this issue a fight is pretty simplistic. If I get banned for addressing an issue that these pro-Apollo people can't deal with, it will only hurt the credibility of this site which is obviously pro-Apollo.

What you're doing is controlling the direction the debate takes. That's pretty unfair to the hoax-believers.

Obviously these people know Apollo was a hoax and this is an issue that they just can't obfuscate and the moderators are riding to their rescue.

http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

David:

You have returned to this tendency to want to discuss what were apparently bad experiences over at Apollo hoax, as well as a decided interest in bad-mouthing Jay Windley, and I am (as I was originally) perplexed with this question of yours when you first came here (and which this current discussion is involved with again):






Now, at the time, it seemed irrelevant to any logical discussion...and not only to me. You were told about it and argued about it.

I am not concerned with your discussions at Apollo Hoax. But I am curious about the question (the large print above), and what it means.

"Dust-Free Sand" (which is a strange terminology to begin with) implies sand (granular rock between ~ 1/16mm and 2 mm in grain size), and an absence of any dust (let's say, washed sand...there's little dust (fine grained solid particulates with sizes <500 micrometers) involved with common sand).

You're asking if transporting (loading it in a truck and moving it from one locale to another, then dumping it someplace) will cause enough erosion in that sand to produce dust significant enough to cause a dust cloud when it is driven over by a wheeled vehicle...I think.

My thought was, well, of course not. Eroding sand into dust is the result of lots of friction over a prolonged period.


But my predominant question, which I had to have asked, was this:

WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO WITH ANYTHING PERTAINING TO APOLLO?

The Moon has nothing to do with "dust-free sand". Apollo has nothing to do with dust-free anything (indeed, dust was a problem all the time on Apollo).


Perhaps you might take some time to explain what your point it...

And if that point has something to do with proving that what was allegedly said over on Apollo Hoax was a lie, that is an irrelevancy here.

Was there some pertinent Apollo-related question you had, or are we reverting to Apollo Hoax bashing again?

(I hope not...)


p.s...
Have you looked at this thread for plausible and reasonable explanation pertaining to that flag movement issue? It was fleshed out about as well as it could've been, and dropped a while ago...

I had a question, but it may have been too difficult to answer. So I'll perhaps rephrase it, at another time.

Hi David,
I brought this flag moving video some weeks ago to this forum and apollo propagandists really didn´t find an answer for that.They get nervous when we try to hear from them about that flag because it is an image that tells the truth for itself.No comments are needed to convince us that MEN NEVER WENT TO THE MOON.

I obviously did not see that a moderator had perceived what I was seeing when I was writing my post to you...(things move fast around here!).

But I must comment:

"These pro-Apollo people" you refer to are not here...they are at Apollo Hoax.
That's the issue.

Here, we are interested largely in education, and stimulating rational and critical thought. "We" can deal with anything, and have.





What happens here is that occassionally, the debate and discussion is directed to where it should be...not to another forum where you obviously have had a bad experience or two.
The point here is that you may think Apollo was a hoax, and that's fine.
You are encouraged to ask questions about your doubts., because we're actually about education. I think it's also clear that "dust-free sand", a pet thing of yours, is irrelevant to Apollo...which is why I asked what your point was.




Your opinion about others...not us.
Alot of us (and apparently, in growing numbers) know that Apollo was in fact real, and would love to help you understand that which you don't.

David C you have refused countless times to adhere to a simple request, this forum is not here for you to host your personal disputes with other web sites, that has been made abundantly clear numerous times and you have continuously and intentionally ignored all requests for this to stop.

Your access to this board has been suspended indefinately, good luck with your future on-line endeavours.

Hat,

Yes, there really was an answer for that...
Have you actually gone backed and looked at the most plausible reason for this flag's movement?
As I said, the issue was dropped a while ago...





This was November, I think...

We keep bringing up issues that are done with...it's getting silly.


Let's move on to some substantive questions!

I fully agree,David!

Excuse me the majority of the world is pro Apollo.

I am sorry Mid...These are comments of a complete desperate apollo propagandist !!! You know that I apreciate your presence on this forum and that I respect you , but Mid please! Don´t be so desperate... I can compare your comments here with the comments you did some minutes ago about lizzards and crocodiles. Totally unreal!

Come now. Who is sounding desperate?

You must be right Mid...Apollo has something to do with CEMENT DUST. That is what they used on NASA moon scenario.

Saruman,I have to say to you that this is a forum and so we have 2 sides discussing a subject.If you are going to accept only apollo believers,then it will not be a forum anymore,but a big room for apollo believers meeting.
You should reconsider your decision on David C.You are completely wrong.You are showing that David C was right when he said that this "forum" is an apollo believer´s room. You are not impartial. David C and apollo believers were talking about other forums in other web sites.THEY ALL WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT.There were questions and answers from both sides.This was not fair!

sounds pretty paranoid too me..good luck..cya

I'd consider reading these if I were you, UNDER THE HAT http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/rules.php

Excuse me Hat, but what about :







...is confusing? Would you like an explanation in detail?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

p.s, comments I made about lizards and crocodiles?

You mean my comments to 747100 about his joke?




What does that have to do with the issue at hand?


It's completely unrelated to serious discussion...it's a joke, Hat (do you know who Christ Kraft and Glynn Lunney are? They're giants, really formidable people who were instrumental in Apollo's success).




I am right, Hat.
But not about cement dust.

You know what cement dust is?
Limestone, gypsum, clay, none of which exist in lunar dust...


And of course, the NASA Moon scenario, which was of course filmed on a "set" in a vacuum at 1/6 g, and procuced no dust clouds (which would be mandatory if using it on an Earth "set", being that we need an atmosphere in order to remain alive, and there are no vacuum chambers that are the size required for such a set...) rather renders your argument nil.

Let's get back on topic here, OK?

David is gone. Stop being so impressed, and reverting to this silly "apollo propagandist" rhetoric.

Ask you questions regarding your doubts.

The reason David was suspended is abundantly clear to those who can read...



The fact is that this board's administrator does not want discussions that involve personal issues from other boards discussed at length here, especially after the person in question has been told several times to drop that subject.

WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

Yes, we have all discussed issues from other boards here, but those issues were RELEVANT to the topic of this forum.


Cz

Hat...please...


Accepting Apollo "believers" had nothing to do with this action.
Don't go there...that's treading on thin ice.

You need to understand:

David is not the type of person you want to be emulating.
The action taken against him was something he drew upon himself.

Your comments are material for a private message, not a public declaration. It was not only fair, it was just, and warranted. David trolled...repeatedly, and couldn't let go of his obvious distain for APollo Hoax. That's off topic and against the rules.

Act for yourself here. Ask your questions. We're interested in fleshing things out for the "non-believer", so that they can move from their paradigm of belief into one of knowledge.


At Apollo Hoax, they expect one to argue logically, and have little tolerance for those who don't.

We're not them. We're us. It's different here, but sometimes, someone's got to go...and universally speaking, that's for well earned reasons.


I implore you to get back on track here...and get off of this arguing with administrator decisions on the public board.

Yes, "cya".

It might've helped...

Ok Mid,I will be quiet about David C... I am sorry about my behaviour,and I appologise.But it is nonsense to seat here and watch you all joking about lizzards and crocodiles over important issues (that I brought up,so it attacked me in a way.I sincerely think that it was a disrespect) and when somebody comes to this forum with new questions,he got permanently suspended.It was a loss to this forum. No problems,lets go ahead! But please apollo believers..As the rules of this forum don´t apply to you,try to keep a little of respect for moon hoax believers.That is all I would like to ask.Thanks!

You DO understand that David C was not suspended for his discussion of "dust-free sand" but for his apparent inability to stop bringing up his personal issues with members of another board, don't you...?

Rather than jumping to your conclusions about things that you apparently don't yet understand, why not take MID's advice and ASK about it, rather than automatically accusing the board's administrator of impropriety? Would you have been so vocal about this if it had been an "Apollo believer" who was suspended for the same reason? Somehow, I think not...

Also, David's questions were NOT new. They were discussed here months ago.

You are right in one regard, this was about respect. Respect for the rules of this forum and respect for the requests of the moderators and administrator, rules and requests which David continually ignored.


Cz

UNDER THE HAT, the questioning of moderator's (let alone an Administrator's) decision is not publically allowed.

QUOTE

5. Moderator action
Unexplained Mysteries is a privately owned web site and as such we reserve the right to remove any post that we deem to be inappropriate, offensive or intentionally disruptive, or to take any action necessary against any member whose behaviour we deem to be inappropriate, offensive or intentionally disruptive. Action taken is done on a case by case basis and is dependant on the nature and severity of the violations, but can include anything up to the banning of the account and IP address.

By using the forum service you agree to the following:
5a. Compliance: You agree to co-operate with the requests of our site staff should you be asked to stop doing something that they deem to be disruptive, inappropriate or in violation of the terms of service.

5b. Protest: You agree not to attack, harrass, threaten or become abusive towards any member of staff. Members who become offensive or participate in harassing, threatening or retaliatory action against the site or a member of staff will be subject to further action. All our moderators are volunteers who give up their own free time to keep the forum a safe and friendly place, please treat them with the respect that they deserve.

5c. Appeal: If you disagree with action taken against your account by a member of staff you can appeal the decision by contacting either the member of staff who took said action or an administrator privately via e-mail or through our private message system. Do not start threads on the forum questionning or criticising moderator action.

5d. Access: If your access or posting rights have been revoked, do not register more accounts in order to circumvent this restriction. Accounts that we find belong to previously banned members will also be banned.

Unexplained Mysteries reserves the right to change or add to these terms and conditions at any time without prior notice, and in any situation the decision of an Administrator is final.

I suggest you take this up with SaRuMaN privately.

Ok Czero,lets end this discussion.But an apollo believer would never be treated like that on this forum.
Hey,lets talk about batteries.Energy is an endless problem until nowadays....Czero,how can you convince me that back in 1969,2 people from the moon surface could send live tv signals carrying that kind of batteries ??? Nowadays,if you go to a soccer stadium ,you will see out of the stadium buses called "motorlinks",that carry huge energy generators and very heavy cables only to send 90 minutes of tv signal to your home.Also,back in 1969 , the videos signals were not compressed..They were transmitted at its very "heavy" original form..So,how could it be possible to have a live tv transmission from the moon???

Ok Lilly,I will do that.
Thanks!

Hey, look, Hat...


I'm cool.
No problem. It's OK. I just want to make it clear where were coming from here.

As I said before, you show promise here!
I'm not simply spewing steam from some orifice other than my mouth when I say that.

I have asked for questions, right?
Think about David's question and what it really was...some nonsense about "dust-free sand". It wasn't a new question...it was an old issue...unrelated and irrelevant to UM, or this discussion.
He had an agenda, not an interest. That became clear, and he was given walking papers. It's happened before...it'll likely happen again.


Here the deal...

I've told you we're interested in your doubts, and have asked for your questions about those doubts.
There's alot of fun involved in answering those questions, and alot more involved with seeing someone do their homework and learn something they never knew before.

...we ALL learn by this experience...

I guarantee you this...Apollo hoax believers all, uncategorically, lack certain knowledge in the subject area which bolsters their view.
This is a somewhat natural thing, given the nature of society as a whole and some of the paradigms that have developed in the decades since Apollo happened.

It is not an insult, Hat.


I can remember, as a kid, struggling to understand some concept, something I'd been taught.
I wasn't a damned genius, I had to work for what I learned. Hard...


And there was always that "eureka" moment, when I understood...when I "got it". Man, the high from that was amazing...

The first time I got into an airplane, intent on learning how to fly it...I didn't know squat about how an airplane flew. I only knew I wanted to do that. The first time I sat in a pilot's seat, and had my hands on the controls of an airplane that was flying...I couldn't believe it.


How in hell can something like this be in the air? I didn't actually know, and that bothered me.

Two years later, I was flying as a pilot in command, licensed and qualified, in a plane at 10,000 feet, singing (before I knew how to drive a car). There was a moment in that two years where, as a newly minted 16 year old kid, my instructor suddenly got out of the plane after a training sesssion, and looked at me with a serious expression, and signed me off to solo.

And I, feeling something like terror mixed with incredible happiness, and the knowedge that it was my time (live or die!)*, did it...several times I flew that airplane around the pattern, taking off and landing, all by myself. At that moment, I KNEW something. I had learned.

* I have honestly never felt a threat of death in an airplane. I have in a car, but never in an airplane! Being in the sky was always more familiar than being on the ground to me...still, it feels like home.

That's the feeling I always got from struggling and investigating and finally getting it, and that's the feeling I like to impart to others...

That's what I'm about, Hat. Learning, doing, and experiencing. That's knowledge.

The first key to that road is to ask!

This is why I say...it's OK to doubt, but ask questions about those doubts!

That's the only way to get on the road to learning...and that's fun!

So whatdya say?
Interested in this stuff?