What it appears you are interpreting, however, is that the definition of a cloud MUST include the presence of an atmosphere and MUST act in the same way that they do on Earth.


Cz

Proof moon landing was faked

and there you have it... they even used the same hollywood backgrounds rofl.

That video is proof of nothing except that some people will believe any hack who can put together a visually attractive video with not one iota of proof or factual evidence. Every single claim made in that video had been long debunked, almost all of them if fact in this very thread.




Cz

The dust is being blasted in all directions. The right-hand chart below indicates "A15 Dust" was blown up ~60m altitude. Look at the "Distance from Landing (m)" - it's within a -10m to 10m region, and is directly above the landing point - 0m...



http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2007/...005.plescia.pdf

On the same page (above link)...

Apollo 15
Dust: 45 m (150')
Obscuration: 18 m (60')


The issue, if you recall, was whether or not the processed Clementine images produced evidence of the (supposed) Apollo 15 landing site, indicated by a "black spot" in one of the images.

Your argument is that 1 or 2 photos show a "brightened swath", where the dust was disturbed by the LM descent engine plume, as the LM moved horizontally above the surface at ~120ft. altitude. This supposed "swath" extends out from only one side of the LM, in a line/path

However, as stated in the chart above, the "vertical descent (A15) caused the most disturbance." And, I've previously noted that the video clip and ALSJ comments verify that the dust only appears and intensifies during the vertical descent.

All of this totally contradicts your claim - that the supposed "brightened swath" in the photo was created by the LM descent engine plume.

Where did you get that idea from? I've never said or implied such things. I've simply pointed out that the sources call it a "dust cloud", so that's the same term I've used.

You and MID are the ones who keep claiming that it's not a "dust cloud"; that it's really a "dust sheet". And you and MID are the ones who keep claiming that the sources only call it a "dust cloud" so lay people can understand it.

And MID insists I'm wrong, because I'm "clinging" to the 'inaccurate' term the sources use!

I've shown you that they call it a "dust cloud" in technical papers NOT intended for lay people.

And you're the one who first posted the definition of "cloud" which has nothing to do with atmosphere. Which therefore qualifies the term "dust cloud" as an accurate term for the phenomenon.

It's a "dust cloud", and it's time you accept that.

Actually, my interpretation of that chart - which is also borne out by the video evidence of the landings - is a bit different from your interpretation in that the chart does not show how high the dust was "blown up", but rather, at what altitude above the lunar surface that surface dust was seen to be effected by the DPS exhaust plume.

Full page containing the chart (reduced by about 50%)


Detail from top left:


Notice that under Apollo 11 it says "Dust moved along surface" ... not "Dust billowed up from surface"

The next page shows where evidence of the scouring effect of Apollo 12's DPS is visible:


And the page after that talks about how dust adhered to just about everything:


So, if dust billowed up and, according to you, surrounded the LM during landing, how come its not mentioned or shown that there was much if any adhered dust on the LM? They certainly went to great lengths to show everywhere else that dust was observed to adhere.

And yes, I realize that the point of your post was about the Clementine findings at the Apollo 15 landing site and how the area effected by the DPS plume shows brighter in certain photographs. The issues I'm commenting about go back to the whole "cloud" issue...



I long ago accepted that the term "cloud" is used and is essentially interchangeable with the term "dust sheet" or "dust cone" that MID prefers to use. You were apparently at one point trying to use the fact that "dust cloud" was used by NASA in some of its documents to prove that the "cloud" came up or billowed up to the same altitude as the LM, IIRC. My posting of the definition of cloud was to show you that an atmosphere need not be present for a phenomena to be classified as a cloud, in this case a cloud of dust.

I have never said it was totally incorrect to call the effect a "dust cloud", merely that it is more correct to call it a "sheet of dust", and that NASA's use of the term "dust cloud" was for ease of understanding of the type of effect produced by the interaction of the DPS exhaust gasses with the lunar surface dust. "Dust sheet" does not give the reader an intuitive "mental image" of the effect, whereas "dust cloud" gives a good idea. Add that to the description of the "dust cloud" racing away from the LM in a "sheet" or in "all directions" and one is left with a vivid mental image of the phenomena.


Cz

Actually, it does. Look at the detail you posted (above).....Apollo 15 - Obscuration: 18 m (60')

That was previously noted in the Apollo 15 journal text (ALSJ)...

"At about 50 to 60 feet, the total view outside was obscured by dust."


MID's reply to this point was....



Now, to reply (sorry for the delay, MID - I've had a hectic month)...

The first point - he said "the total view outside was obscured by dust".

MID argued that "His view was spring loaded to one direction: down. If he was looking out at the horizon, or up, or anywhere else during the terminal phase, he needed to be slapped".

But was it really a serious blunder to look anywhere else but straight down at the ground below the LM, by the time it descended to 50-60 ft.?? Not if you consider this...

Pete Conrad, from Apollo 12's 1969 Technical Debrief, when the LM had descended to 30-35 ft. above the surface...

"At that point, the dust was bad enough and I could obtain absolutely no attitude reference by looking at the horizon and the LM. I had to use the 8-ball."

AFAIK, nobody slapped Conrad (or wanted to) for looking out at the horizon!

That's because it wasn't wrong. Just like it wasn't wrong in Apollo 15's case.

So "the total view outside" the Apollo 15 LM was obscured by dust at 50-60 ft. above the surface. Because the dust was being blasted 50-60 ft. above the surface.



Not a speck of dust can be found on the LM, which seems like a good reason why its not mentioned.

But, why isn't there any dust on the LM in the photos? Now, that's a great question!

And it's a significant problem for Apollo supporters, as I noted earlier. The photos do not corroborate what is observed in the video clip, and stated in the ALSJ. Not only the complete lack of dust on the LM, but the lack of evidence for surface disturbance / dust dispersion in general.



Well, the "dust cloud" does come up to the same altitude as the LM, as I've pointed out above. But I've never suggested it is the same as clouds on Earth.



Why are you still so convinced that NASA uses the term "dust cloud" just so the public can 'understand' the phenomenon?

I've shown you technical papers that use the term "dust cloud", not the least bit aimed at the general public. The intended readers of such documents would include experts in the field, and requires accurate technical terms always be used.

So why do they still call it a "dust cloud"???

Apollo 15 - Obscuration: 18 m (60') indicates that when the LM was at 18 m altitude, the lunar surface and the total view of the landing area was obscured by the dust blown away by the DPS exhaust plume. That observation is borne out by the video evidence from each landing. You assumption of a dust cloud rising to that altitude is not based upon any evidence, just your insistence that the landings must have been faked which makes it impossible for you to see any explanation other than that which fits your preconceived opinions.

There is no evidence of a dust cloud enveloping the LM ever. There is plenty of evidence showing that the Lunar surface under the LM during the final stages of landing was partially to completely obscured due to the blowing dust. The level of obscuration differed from one landing site to another since the depth of the surface dust also differed from one landing site to another.

Your belief in your opinions does not validate your conclusions, whereas the historical evidence clearly, convincingly and overwhelmingly supports the fact that the dust was blown away across the Lunar surface, in all directions radially away from the LM, and in no way supports your assertions that a dust cloud billowed up to surround the LM.

Your fascination on minutiae such as the terminology NASA chooses to employ in their documents, technical or otherwise, shows the lengths to which you much go in your attempts to find justification for your opinions.

You want to know why NASA chose to use "dust cloud" in their documents? Ask them. I'm sure those articles technical documents list the authors and / or contributors and an email address for at least one and possibly more could be found with a little bit of searching. But as MID has advised you in the past in matters such as this, it would be best to not bring up the conspiracy / hoax angle if you expect them to give your questions any credence or an answer.


Reiterating:




Cz

Turbs, with all due respect, the only evidence you have for dust being blasted 50-60 feet above the surface is a literal interpretation of what an astronaut said the the technical debrief. When he made that statement I'm sure he knew exactly what he meant, but didn't realise that some 40 years later someone would be nitpicking his statement to use it as proof that there was a 60 foot high cloud of dust immediately outside the LM window. It all boils down to a strictly literal interpretation of what he said, rather than putting it into the context of what the film footage shows.

Let's take your literal interpretation of what is said in the technical debriefs a little further. At one point, one of the astronauts said "At this point I came back into the LM". Surely that means he was outside of the LM, and then came back inside? Well, of course not. That would be plain idiocy. We can infer what he meant of course: whta he meant was that his focus of attention came back inside the LM, and he was effectively flying on instrumentation. In other words, a literal interpretation of his exact words gives us completely the wrong picture about what was happening. We simply use a smidgen of common sense to understand what he actually meant. Just as we use a smidgen of common sense to understand what was meant by the view outside the LM being obscured at 50-60 feet.

If you disagree, then you'll need to explain to me why you can cherry-pick a strictly literal interpretation of the phrase "total view outside the LM was obscured by dust 50-60 feet above the surface", while you turn a blind eye to the phrase "I came back inside the LM" (paraphrasing).



Because the LM wasn't enveloped in a cloud of dust - unless you insist on a strictly literal interpretation of one phrase in one sentece of the technical debrief. The film evidence doesn't support that assertion, and the lack of atmosphere on the moon explains why there was no dust cloud enveloping the LM.



There's plenty of corroborating photographic evidence, much of which has been presented in this thread. The LPI document you linked to earlier also showed evidence of the exhaust plume on Apollo 12 in three panoramic shots. There's also the Clementine study which shows evidence of dust dispersal exactly where the Apollo 15 landing site is.

No. He didn't say "the total view of the landing area was obscured by the dust". He said "the total view outside was obscured by dust"

The video shows the dust obscuring everything in the camera's view. And so was the total view outside, as noted above.



The total view outside was obscured by dust at 50-60 ft., as stated in the ALSJ. The dust obscures the entire view of the camera pointed outside. Two points of evidence for a dust cloud.

Where is "plenty of evidence" you have that no dust cloud existed?



What's that? You claim that the dust was blown "in all directions radially away from the LM"?

Not a "brightened swath", like MID and Peri keep claiming?

I await your reply...



Take a closer look at what you just said, because it's hilarious.

- You're suggesting I ask them why they used a term that you have an issue with!

- Instead of asking them yourself, you just decided to invent your own 'reason' why they used that term.

YOU have the problem with their term. NOT ME.

If you really want to know why they used that term, why don't YOU ask them?

Seems a lot better than pretending you already know, doesn't it?



I have a better idea. Why don't you see if you can convince NASA to sift through all of their documentation, and wherever the term "dust cloud" pops up, advise them to change it into "dust sheet"??

If they ask you why they should change it, just tell them the same thing you told me - that "dust cloud" is an inaccurate term, and "dust sheet" is the accurate term.

It's quite possible that NASA will even award you with a medal of excellence, or something!

Glory awaits you, Czero!





Present this evidence to NASA when you tell them about the "dust sheet". Neil said there's no "dust clouds", so NASA will be forced into striking "dust cloud" out of all their documentation.

I'm sure.....

I'd like to focus on this point first, because it relates to the main issue.

Your claim is that the Apollo 15 LM created a "brightened swath", as depicted in one or two photos.

The problem is that you haven't presented a plausible explanation for how this would have occurred.

MID's explanation doesn't make any sense. He suggests that the dust was only disturbed while the LM was ~120 ft. above the surface, while moving laterally __ ft. along a straight path / line.

It means that there was NO dust disturbed all around the LM during final descent. Your "brightened swath" of disturbed dust only extends out in a single direction from the LM. That is, about a 30 degree section of "brightened swath", from the 360 degree perimeter around the LM.


The greatest disturbance of dust - as NASA itself acknowledges - was during the final vertical descent to the surface.

There should be a radius of disturbed dust, surrounding the entire LM. Not just a small line of disturbed dust, extending in one direction away from the LM!!

Do you see why your argument is impossible? It's completely backwards, where the dust is only disturbed when the LM is ~120 ft. above it, while there is no effect when it's being blasted by 3000 lbs. of thrust just a few feet away!!

Actually that's a separate issue to the Clementine study. That study shows evidence of disruption to the regolith (on the particle level) exactly where the Apollo 15 landing site is.



Well, since the burden of proof lies in your court, the problem is that you haven't demonstrated that what you perceive as anomalies are evidence that the photos and film evidence must have been faked.



I don't recall MID saying such a thing, but if he did then I disagree. Quite clearly the evidence shows that the dust was disturbed all the way down to the surface from a height of approx 120 feet (depending on the mission). The amount of dust disturbed would have increased as the LM descended, again born out by the film evidence. It would have stopped being disturbed very soon after the descent engine was turned off.



It's not my argument, you are totally misrepresenting my position. Complete strawman.

Ok then.
There's never been any question regarding the dust being up at the altitude the LM was at one point of another. That's been made clear.
Now you seem to be saying these "dust clouds" have never been suggested to be the same as earth dust clouds.


You have, though, by indicating that they "enveloped the LM" and should've left residue on it after landing.
That too has been explained, again just recently. It's not possible.

What is a significant problem is that you don't seem to be able to grasp the idea of dust movent away from the impulse in vacuum, and that no dust should've appeared on the LM.
It's no longer a great question, because it's been explained ad infinitum.

The pictures show what simple physics and logic indicate they should.

MID didn't, posty. He said exactly what you did above...
Perhaps he's referring to some semantic argument in my choice of words...which I wouldn't be surprized at, based on this now nonsensical dust cloud issue....

But this is not corroborated by the photographs.

You said "The brightened area is large, diffuse, and subtle. To see it clearly, you need to look at images showing a larger area around the LM"

Let's review the photos (I've reduced in size below) which you claim show the "brightened swath" created by the LM descent engine plume....





The above photos, cropped and enlarged...





We can use the LM's known dimensions - 20.9 ft. high, 14 ft. diameter, and a landing gear span of 29.75 ft. - to get an idea of scale.

There should be lots of dust disturbed all around the LM from the vertical descent to the surface. As you said, "The amount of dust disturbed would have increased as the LM descended, again born out by the film evidence."

How can there only be a disturbance of dust extending out from one side of the LM?!? The video shows massive amounts of dust being blown out from all directions as it descends to the surface. But the photos do not corroborate this. None of the photos do.

I think there is only one plausible explanation for this - and exposes Apollo as a hoax. They staged two separate events. To wit - they filmed the 'landing', and a separate scene was staged for the photos after the 'landing'.

It's a very important aspect of filmmaking called continuity. To establish a sense of realism and believability, continuity is consistency of the characteristics of persons, plot, objects, places and events seen by the viewer.

Continuity errors

While most continuity errors are subtle, such as changes in the level of drink in a character's glass or the length of a cigarette, others can be more noticeable, such as sudden drastic changes in appearance of a character, or the unexplained appearance of a character believed to be dead. Such errors in continuity can ruin the illusion of realism, and affect suspension of disbelief. In cinema special attention must be paid to continuity because films are rarely shot in the order in which they are presented: that is, a crew may film a scene from the end of a movie first, followed by one from the middle, and so on.

The continuity error in Apollo 15's LM 'landing' is the visual discrepancy between the 'cause' (video of LM blasting up dust during the landing), and the 'effect' (photos of the LM post-landing, after the dust had settled).

I also found this interesting....

Dealing with errors

When continuity mistakes have been made, explanations are often proposed by either writers or fans to smooth over discrepancies. Fans sometimes make up explanations for such errors that may or may not be integrated into canon; this has come to be colloquially known as fan****ing. Often when a fan does not agree with one of the events in a story (such as the death of a favorite character) they will choose to ignore the event in question so that their enjoyment of the franchise is not diminished.

Canon, in the context of a fictional universe, comprises those novels, stories, films, etc., that are considered to be genuine or officially sanctioned, and those events, characters, settings, etc., that are considered to have existence within the fictional universe. In order for a setting to appear cohesive, especially in fictions that contain multiple parts, both creators and audiences sometimes find it useful to define what has and has not "actually happened" in that universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuity_(fiction)

No offense, but I think it describes the pro-Apollo situation very nicely...

"Explanations..proposed..to smooth over discrepancies." "(Apollo supporters) sometimes make up explanations for such errors that may or may not be integrated into canon..(an event) considered to be genuine or officially sanctioned."

postie - you also cited this image earlier, to support your argument...



The problem, however, is that it contradicts your argument.

The left-side image depicts the LM soon after landing. The LM and its shadow are the only features noted. There is no disturbance of dust indicated.

The right-side image (taken 40 hours later) indicates areas where the dust has now been disturbed - by astronaut and rover activity, during the previous 40 hours.

The LM landing itself - left-side image - apparently caused NO disturbance of dust. Or if it did, it was completely undetected in these images.

Apparently, the astronaut footprints (and the rover) disturbed a significant amount of dust, while the 3000 lb. thrust of the LM decent engine plume had virtually no effect on the dust.

The more points of "evidence" you present, the more discrepancies revealed in your argument. Consider these 5 points, which you've claimed to be evidence in support of your argument ...

1. The video - shows significant disturbance of dust all around the LM.

2. The 2 "brightened swath" photos - show a linear disturbance of dust extending out from only one side of the LM.

3. The left-side image above - shows no disturbance of dust by the LM landing.

4. The other Apollo photos - show little or no disturbance of dust caused by the LM landing.

5. The Clementine 'image' - shows a huge radial disturbance of dust - "The anomaly is within a 165-foot (50-meter) to 490-foot (150-meter) radius around the landing site." He contends that the alteration has been created by the lunar modules engine during touchdown.


Point 1 - the video - can only match up with Point 5. It cannot and does not match up with Points 2, 3, or 4.

Point 2 - the "brightened swath" - does not match up with any of the other Points.

Point 3 - no disturbance of dust - only matches up with Point 4. It does not match up with Points 1, 2, or 5.

These 5 points should show exactly the same thing, but they are completely different from one another. Some show a huge disturbance of dust from the LM plume, while others show absolutely no disturbance from the LM plume. And your 2 photos show a one-directional "swath" of disturbed dust.

Instead of solidifying your argument by presenting more evidence, you've actually helped in destroying it, peri.

You're conveniently forgetting that while the LM was descending vertically it was also moving horizontally. The DPS exhaust plume would have "scrubbed" a path in the lunar surface as it was moving horizontally across the surface from approximately 120 feet (where dust is first observed being displaced) right to DPS cutoff at landing. The last 50 - 60 feet of descent were more or less horizontal, however the LM was still moving horizontally even right at touchdown.

From the ALSJ - Apollo 15: Landing at Hadley


Plus, the chart you posted before clearly shows that even in the last 40 or so feet of decent, the LM moved roughly 25 feet horizontally:




How's this? Here is a series of screen caps from this mpeg video of the 16mm DAC camera film of the landing

Captures start at approximately 1:34.00 of the video file

120 feet altitude, first indication of dust disturbance, not entirely clear due to quality of film / video


80 feet altitude, not much clearer than the first frame, but dust starting to be visible in the lower left corner of the frame


60 feet altitude, dust more visible, streaking effect of dust deflected by surface rocks clearly visible lower left of frame


40 feet altitude, landing area largely obscured, streaking effect more noticeable


30 feet altitude, landing area even more obscured, streaking very obvious


20 feet altitude, landing area completely obscured, streaking clearly visible, some larger craters partially visible in right side of frame, landing gear shadow top centre of frame


10 feet altitude, landing area still obscured, some craters visible, landing gear shadow larger


Approximately 6 feet altitude, "Contact light" has just been called, streaking very visible, some craters visible, landing gear and side of descent stage shaow very clear and visible



So... if there was a "cloud enveloping the LM" as you seem to think there should have been, why were craters still visible? and also, if there was a "cloud enveloping the LM", why is the shadow of the landing gear and descent stage so clearly visible in the last 3 frames? If a cloud was completely surrounding the LM, you shouldn't be able to see the shadow, yet the video evidence in the frame cap clearly shows a well defined shadow on top of the layer of dust being blown away by the DPS exhaust.

It's also clear that you don't understand that when Dave Scott says:

he is saying that the area in which the LM is going to land is obscured by dust. Remember, he's got almost all of his attention focused on the landing area and making a safe, controlled landing. He's not even paying attention to the flight instruments (except as noted in the ALSJ quote below), Jim Irwin is watching all the instruments and feeding Scott the information he needs. Scott refers to this arrangement as him being "outside" and Irwin being "inside" and also mentions the difficulty in seeing the surface details:

From the ALSJ - Apollo 15: Landing at Hadley





I'm not the one who has the problem with the term "dust cloud" Turbs... you are... and just like the issues you had with "damaged" and the willful ignorance you showed a while back while discussing radiation, you are doggedly sticking to uninformed opinions about this topic and you are making it painfully obvious that you have no intention of actually learning anything from these discussions. You just spew out your typical rhetoric and expect your opinions and your belief in them to make it fact for you despite ALL the evidence - whether you can understand it or not - that clearly points out that your opinions are wrong.

So it seems that I'm not the one being the "glory-hound" here Turbs. The evidence speaks for it self. Its saying "you're wrong, Turbs"... and the silence from your lack of any real evidence beyond your own ignorance of the subject also speaks volumes....


Cz

I was fairly certain you didn't say that MID.

I thought it may have been possible that you said something that was misinterpreted that way, sine there seems to be rather a lot of misinterpretation on this thread recently!

IIRC the one I was referring to was the Clementine study which showed evidence of disturbance at the particle level (the one that asn't an actual image, but a combination of images with a complex photometric function applied).



IMO it's impossible to tell for certain what, if any, plume effect is visible in either of the two images you linked. To be certain of that, we'd need a similar image taken before the LM landed to make a comparison. It's possible that there would be no obvious visible effect in a single photo taken at that resolution, and that distance.

An inability to make this distinction is not proof that no dust was disturbed by the descent engine!



Once more, an apples and oranges comparison. The LM descent engine scoured away the uppermost levels of the loose surface regolith, and disposed of it at high velocity over a very wide area of dispersal. The effect on the regolith would have become more concentrated the closer the LM got to the surface, right up until the engine was switched off.

Compare that to the action of an astronauts boot, or the rover wheel. They churned up the top inch or so of regolith, sometimes exposing the darker stuff underneath, but it was all very localised. It wasn't being sprayed out horizontally at high velocity to a distance of dozens oe metres.



No, you keep on misrepresenting my argument then picking holes in it, which as you may be aware is a logical fallacy - strawman. Seems you did this with MID as well.



A sheet/cloud of dust being sprayed out a great distance in all directions.



I'm not convinced either way about the brightened swathe photos. This may contradict my opinion from a few weeks ago, but I reserve the right to change my mind.



Possibly not, but as stated impossible to be sure without a "before" photo. My opinion at the moment is that the bright patch to the "south-east" (as looking at the image) is just sunlight striking the inside wall of a crater, rather than dust blown there by the LM.



Depends which photos we're talking about.



The Clementine "image" wasn't a single photo - it was a composite of many different photos atken at slightly different angles. The method used by the authors of the paper is used to reveal slight alterations caused to the structure of the surface regolith by material thrown up by fresh impact craters, that wouldn't otherwise be visible. It doesn't mean that such a feature would be immediately obvious in a single photo.

Yes...and I'm sure if that's the case, someone will find it, and make another semantic argument that avoids the issue of proving an Apollo hoax...

You're misstating my position, Turb. I originally posted the Apollo 15, 16, and 17 photos to counter your claim that there was absolutely no evidence in the Apollo photo record showing any soil disturbances at the landing sites. I believe the photo record clearly shows evidence of regolith disturbance, both from the DPS plume and from crew activity. I've made no claims that these visible disturbances correlate in way with the Clementine analysis conducted by Kreslavsky and Shkuratov. In fact, I've specifically told you on multiple occasions that the Clementine analysis is completely independent of anything in the Apollo photo record. The analysis technique isn't looking for visible bright spots or dark spots.

You're making an enormous assumption here which I've highlighted in red in your quote above. You're assuming that all of the observations we've been discussing MUST be the result of just one single phenomenon and that there must be a one-to-one correlation (i.e. blown dust = brightened surface = Clementine photometric anomaly). There's absolutely no reason that this has to be the case. Kreslavsky and Shkuratov state very clearly that their technique identifies impact crater anomalies that are completely independent of any visible disturbances:

PHOTOMETRIC ANOMALIES OF THE LUNAR SURFACE: NEW RESULTS FROM CLEMENTINE DATA ANALYSIS
Kreslavsky, M.A. and Shkuratov, Yu.G., Lunar and Planetary Science 33, 2002, No. 1161

Some small (~100m) fresh craters have halos of negative anomaly [1]. Old craters never have such halos. Many morphologically fresh craters, exhibiting bright ejecta zones, do not have the anomalous halos. The halo is usually 0.5-5 km in diameter, several times wider than the bright ejecta area of the associated crater. The latter proves that we do observe a structure anomaly. The halos have less steep phase curves than the background; this means that the uppermost layer of the regolith has smoother microtopography and/or higher packing density. We interpret this in the following way. The uppermost regolith layer has a specific porous openwork, "fairycastle" millimeter-scale structure, which is created by the space weathering factors, primarily, due to the micrometeoritic bombardment. The impact damages this structure in some vicinity of the impact site. Particular mechanism of this damage may be shaking of the regolith by the impact-induced shock/seismic wave. Alternatively, a shower of fine-grain distal ejecta could be powerful enough to damage the structure, but not enough to overturn the regolith and expose the brighter immature material.

As for the brightened areas at the landing sites, Kreslavsky and Shkuratov agree that it exists in the Apollo photo record:

There is a negative anomaly at the Apollo 15 landing site [1]. We interpret it as an area of an "openwork" regolith structure damaged by the lander jets. Some brightening of the surface at the landing site attributed to the regolith disturbance by the jets had been observed in images taken from the orbit by Apollo 15 astronauts [6]. Study of microphotographs of the regolith at the landing sites [7] has shown a difference in mm-scale topographic characteristics between locations close and far from the landers.

I don't claim to know the precise mechanism which creates this surface brightening, but there is no reason to assume that it must correlate precisely with every area touched by blowing dust during the landing. Let me give you one quick hypothetical example to show that the situation may be more complex than you have assumed. Just so we're clear, I'm not claiming that this is the actual mechanism at work here.

Assume for the moment that the landing site surface is composed of a dark layer of weathered dust lying on top of brighter immature material (as described by Kreslavsky and Shkuratov above). Assume that the DPS plume erodes away the darker top layer and just barely exposes the brighter material underneath. If this is the case, then it won't matter where the blown-away dark material lands -- it's the same basic color as the rest of the surface and won't be visible. The only brightened area will be the portion of the surface most heavily eroded by the exhaust plume.



Again, this is just an illustration of a hypothetical case. Unless you know the exact mechanism behind the documented surface brightening, though, you cannot assume that it MUST correlate to the blowing dust visible in the landing films.

Now, if we can get back to the original topic you started so long ago, why is the Clementine analysis wrong? The study was conducted by two non-NASA, non-U.S. scientists using an innovative technique to analyze Clementine imagery taken 23 years after the landing. The results show an anomaly precisely at the Apollo 15 landing site which is consistent with the results seen at other young craters and which the authors believe is the result of recent regolith disturbances. As I've quoted above, the authors clearly state that the anomalies they detect using this method are not necessarly tied to visible features on the surface. Their analysis is completely independent of anything in the Apollo photo record. So, why is this not a valid piece of evidence to support the reality of the Apollo 15 landing?

I said...

4. The other Apollo photos - show little or no disturbance of dust caused by the LM landing.



Here are two examples (I've reduced in size)...


(AS15-87-11840 / AS15-87-11841)

Another example (I've also reduced in size)...



The ALSJ's comments on this photo are below. I've bolded the relevant sentence.

AS15-87-11842
147:27:12 Jim has moved to a position slightly north of the minus-Z (east) strut to take this picture of the area under the Descent Stage. Compared to some other missions, there doesn't seem to be as much evidence of sweeping by the Descent Engine exhaust as there is in some other missions, particular Apollo 12. Note the numerous pieces of trash they have tossed under the Descent Stage to keep it out from under foot.

To suggest that "...there doesn't seem to be as much evidence of sweeping by the Descent Engine exhaust as..other missions..." has to be considered an understatement of epic proportions.

I would argue that there is absolutely no evidence of sweeping by the Descent Engine exhaust in this photo, nor in the other two photos above.

You're still missing the point.

The main problem isn't that a path or "swath" could, or would, have been created by the LM descent engine plume. Indeed, if the LM keeps moving horizontally / laterally during the final descent, from ~120 ft. altitude, right on through to its landing on the surface, some type of linear effect would be reasonably expected.

But that would not, indeed could not, be the only effect of the DPS exhaust plume on the surface - let alone be the most prominent effect.

The greatest effect, by far, would be a disturbance of dust all around the LM landing point. And that is precisely what we don't see in the photos.

Exactly - in all directions. But that's not what the photos show.

What photos? Tha SIM bay camera shots? Clementine?
... is it any wonder that NASA and others don't bother with getting pictures of the landing sites? No matter what they show, HBs will keep playing them as evidence of a hoax.
Turb...you use the word "should" a lot. How much disturbance "should" there be from a DPS at 100 feet? 50 feet? What "should" it look like? What data do you base this on?

I like the questions, Mr. B.
I think they've been asked (multiple times...without any particular response)...but there's certainly nothing wrong with asking them again!

Maybe we'll get somehere with this discusion as a result!

Ask yourself, have you ever seen the american flag on the moon?

No.
Moon haoxinated
Incorrect lighting

Just think about it, if they could convince the world during the cold war they went to the moon through hollywood techniques...

Now look at today, we have this propaganda everywhere!

Ask yourself, have you ever seen an atom?
No.


Seriously, though, "Look at the You Tube link" isn't much of an argument.

In your own words, what do you see wrong with the Apollo moon landings, and why?

FANFARE ::: FANFARE ::; UN QUOTE OF THE WEEK


Ask yourself, have you ever seen an atom?
No.


Now that rumbles my mammaries real funny.



NASA, are people actually still relying on Nasa data? Why??? Let me check my watch, we have not jaunted back to the stone age have we? Why are we still trusting our beliefs provided by a government agency? WHY???? lol. It's like believing everything that CNN TELLS US AS ABSOLUTE TRUTH...HAHA.

WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT NASA DELIBERATELY COLOUR FILTERED ALL MARS MISSION IMAGES UNTIL ONE INVESTIGATOR TOLD US THE NASA WAS LYING, SINCE THEN, WE CAN SEE NASA MARS PICTURES WITHOUT RED FILTERS...

THIS ARGUMENT BLOWS WIDE ANY NASA CLAIM OF ANY KIND....SIMPLE LOGIC, COMMON SENSE, SIMP[LE INTERNET RESEARCH WILL PROVE MY ARGUEMENT. YOU HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO AGREE. SO DO.



More relevance with the following link of vids. Nasa space vehicles over the moon recording non human origin anomalae, that nasa either released deliberately or.....well, I have no clue why those vids are avaliable if we did not moon land....


http://youtube.com/results?search_query=OB...mp;search_type=

So the shuttle is fake? The Hubble and it's photos? Supercritical airfoil technology? Windshear research findings? Global warming and ozone hole research? That's a very sweeping statement you make.

What is this riduiculous penchant you have for posting absolutely meaningless youtube videos?
These clips are made by some young computer savvy moron who knows nothing.

Further, they say nothing about lighting or anything else...

Have we ever seen the American flag on the Moon?


Yes...most of us have, six times...


Here's one of them (December, 1972, Taurus Littrow Valley, surface of the Moon, EVA 1, 16 degree sun elevation...AND long before you were a pleasant summer night's dream...):



How about you tell me how the lighting is wrong in this picture?


Then again, how about you don't try.
I have a strange feeling I know what you answer will be, and it won't be substantive...it'll be:

WAKE UP AND LEARN THE TRUTH. YOU'VE BEEN LIED TO. YOU'RE ADHERING TO THE STATUS-QUO...IT'S A PLOT BY YOUR GOVERNMENT TO GET YOU TO ACCEPT LIES SO YOU CONFORM TO THEIR NEW WORLD ORDER...THE MEDIA IS AN INSIDIOUS ARM OF THE GOVERNMENT. IT'S ALL LIES!! IT'S HOLLYWOOD TRICKERY...AND WE ALL KNOW THAT HOLLYWOOD IS AN ARM OF THE GOVERNMENT!


Did you know that "simple Internet searches" guide you to 90% baloney and 10% accurate scientific information? Did you realize that the Internet is a problem, because it allows un-critiqued, un-substantiated, un-referenced, and non-critcally reviewed nonsense to be "published" right along side the actual real information? Have you ever stopped to think that maybe applying yourself in high school might have been a really good idea, and might have taught you about science, and mathematics, and research and effort, and proof and reference gathering?


Are you interested in learning something, or just interested in finding the latest youtube video production by some idiot who's lived his life on a computer and probably never read a book, or experienced anything truly compelling in his life?


This thread is about learning something.
We ask for questions here, not nonsensical declarations about things you know nothing about.

(...the lighting was perfectly normal, as well as everything else represented. The fact is, there are things you don't understand, as amazing at that may seem. This thread is about understanding them).


Trust me, Zaus, if you're interested, and actually have questions...this is the place to ASK THEM.
If your intent is to post nonsensical declarations based upon equally nonsensical youtube videos, you'll find yourself getting you head handed to you on a platter.


ASK A QUESTION...

No, we can't. We can all agree that there are false color images, and always have been, which are designed to highlight certain features. That's not a lie...it's simply something you don't understand. There are also plenty of natural color images...always have been.





Simple logic, and common sense, would lead one to the logical conclusion that most of what's on youtube is nonsense, JET...

Dog...

I guess what I've done in the past couple posts was echo your comments precisely.

I'm giving it a 50:50 chance of actually producing a question....

Ever the optimist, eh MID?



Cz

really nice pic MID the flag looks great on the moon

The photos supposedly taken on the moon by the Apollo 15 astronauts, such as the ones I recently posted - AS15-87-11840 / AS15-87-11841 / AS15-87-11842.

Go through the entire Apollo 15 photo archive - there is absolutely no evidence of dust being blown out in all directions from the LM descent engine plume.



What do you mean - "NASA and others don't bother with getting pictures of the landing sites"?



It's primarily based on the evidence in the video, showing an enormous amount of dust being disturbed during the LM's descent to the surface. And the LM crew accounts, which corroborate what we see in the video.

How much disturbance should there be"? Well, how much dust can we see being disturbed in the video? It's impossible to quantify, but obviously there's a lot of dust being blown around. Again, here is postie's quote on what the video shows.."A sheet/cloud of dust being sprayed out a great distance in all directions."

The point is that the photos don't show any disturbance of dust all around the LM, caused by the descent engine plume.

If we did land man on the moon 40 years ago. Why is it we only have a space station in orbit around earth and not by now after 40 years a moon base.

What explanation can you give for this ?

With all the money spent on the shuttle and space station with its limited life, we could by now have a town or city on the moon.

Man has always pushed the technology of his day to its limits at that point of time, so why no moon base.


Dan Dare

Because the public is not motivated to go to the moon. In the 1960s the Public was motivated because the Russians were winning the space race, first in space, first man in space, etc etc etc. . . So the US set their goals big, first man on the moon. When the public started loosing interest so did the government, because it cost alot of money to send a ship in orbit and then to the moon. It costs alot of money to send a shuttle into Orbit.

The reason we are going back to the moon, and then on to mars is because there is now more interest, and with Private companies it will become alot cheeper to do so.

Oh and MID. . . I cant believe you havnt shot your self with all the stupid questions and statements these people post. . . lol good show.

~Thanato

How were the public being motivated, and as to the cost that was for the public to meet with no questions asked. The public had no say into what was happening or what was being spent. It is no different to this day, they do what they want with no concern of public opinion or cost. We are still at stage one a man in space and that is after 40 years.




I do not think the public have any more interest than they did back then.

Dan Dare

Yea...well, I try to be!!!

Yep, she's a pretty sight, eh?
We'll see it again one day...to be sure!

Well, Thanato, there have been times...when I've considered....uh...drinking heavily!!!:(

There have actually been some good ones, though. I live for them.
It does, however, get a bit trying at times.

I have a question for you MID.

Speculation time. What do you think one of the Apollo landsites would be like today? The stuff the astronauts left behind, the flag, the LRV...etc...?

Wow! 280 pages and going strong!

Dan, If i may ask, do you believe that the Aries moon program will be real, or a hoax? Anyone please feel free to answer, I am curious to your opinions.

There most certainly were questions asked:

Rev. Ralph Abernathy leads march to protest Apollo 11 launch




People protested the expense and use of resources to go to the Moon at the very time of the triumph of Apollo. It is no surprise to me that once Moon landings became "routine", opponents would take the opportunity of public apathy to make sure that Apollo was killed.

Perhaps I can give this a try...
It's already been very thoroughly explained previously...but I suppose it's probably unreasonable to have you go through 4000+ posts to find it.

First of all, we did land men on the Moon, 39 years ago, and did so five more times over the next 3 years.

I am going to have to assume, since you're asking this question, that you weren't around during the 1950s and 1960s, and thus don't have a complete grasp of the state of the world at that time, and the impetus which drove the Apollo program.

It isn't necessarily a continuous linear process...moving from landing men on the Moon to a manned space station, to a human presence on the Moon, to manned Mars mission, and so forth, especially considering that Apollo was initially--and in the minds of some--only a politically motivated program designed to illustrate the superiority of America over the Soviet Union in technological capability pertaining to space flight and heavy lift missile capability. In other words, a Cold War battle.

That is, in fact, what our space exploration activity was based upon from 1957 to 1969.
Nonetheless, our far-sighted President at the time, John Kennedy, recognized that the competitive aspect of pitting American technological skill against the Soviets (who had a heck of alot of it as well) would serve as an inspirational thing, and would require hundreds of thousands of people, and the best technological minds we had, in order to pull this thing off. As well, he understood the inspirational capacity that such an endeavor could cultivate. Further, he understood the passion that was cultivated in American scientists and engineers, and was fully cog