Would anyone like to reply to my last post? The photos show no disturbance of dust all around the LM, caused by the plume...but the video does.

The video is very interesting in other ways, as I'll show in my next post...

That silence you're "hearing", Turbs, is people ignoring your absurd claims and willful, deliberate ignorance... just thought you should know...


Cz

I just recently read the Preliminary Science Report for Apollo 15, as well as some sample reports, and the Apollo 15 deep core report. From what I think, there is every chance they landed at a spot where there was "regolith to spare". Enough to leave some degree of a blanket of dusty material on the ground, under and around the LM, and of relatively uniform color.

I don't think they ever intended to defend against the accusation of discrepancies in the geologic or photographic records regarding the plains at Hadley, or even the photographs of the rille, itself. For that reason, I think it would take someone familiar with the scientific literature or records to argue these points. Or, should I say, explain them.

I've spent the last couple of weeks reading through all 281 (!) pages of this thread. I wanted to say a couple of things, if people will humour me. Firstly, I'm really impressed by the way the discussion has, with very few exceptions, stayed at a polite and respectful level. Discussions have got quite heated, but no-one resorts to name-calling and the other unwelcome things you see on other forums discussing this topic. Secondly, I'd like to say how grateful I am for te numerous links to amazing background material people have been putting up. I've been interested in Apollo for a long time (and Mercury and Gemini too) and have found a whole new load of material to keep me interested, probably for years! Many thanks, one and all.

There appears to be a slight little divit under neath the LM. Who is to say there was alot of dust at that sight? Maybe there was just a tiny layer that settled back down after the LM landed, maybe they kicked dust around with their boots? I dont know what they did on the moon as I was not there. It is quite possible that there was only a tiny small thin layer of dust at that spot.

~Thanato

There are many photos showing the surface erosion beneath the LM from the exhaust plume. As for the area further out, where the effect would be more from the moving dust that direct engine "blast", I'm not even sure what effect we'd be looking for. Dust that was transported, then landed.
Why haven't we been back? Apollo was de-funded by Congress during the early landings. We invested in Shuttle. There has been no real interest in returning to the Moon since. Today's planning and investment is encouraging, but not indicative of a "big push"...yet.

No, merril, I don't think anyone involved could've ever envisioned having to defend themselves against such accusations....

You would also be correct, it doesn take someone of scientific background, in many cases to explain these things.

However, in this particular case, the issue we are discussing is one of basic common sense and ruduimentary understand. It's really not that complicated.

imp...


That's impressive that you spent the time to read through the entire thread. Lot's of people don't do that.
We attempt in this forum not to demean anyone for their views...as best as possible!
I for one (and I'm not alone) understand where such viewpoints originate.


...although I shall concede that it sometimes gets difficult in the face of obstinate adherence to fallacies...

What we endeavor to do is explain what is not understood (and there's alot that is not undertstood about Apollo). Hopefully, even in "heated" discussions with the most obstinate, someone's going to learn something that they didn't know...and that goes for all of us...those arguing against Apollo, and those of us who actually know something of the facts of the matter. There's always something to learn for everyone. That's the fun.

I'm also impressed with your interest in the subject matter.

So I'll tell you what....if you've got anything to say, or any questions about your interest, please feel free to do so.

We're really not about staging arguments...we're more about teaching, and learning!


You're welcome here.

What is evident in the Apollo under-the-LM photos are varying degrees of dust erosion and some thermal effect in places. It varied with all of the landing sites, depending on the depth of the dust at each particular place.

What is not apparent is any evidence of cratering...nor is there any evidence of dust at the landing site that might have settled back down on the LM or in the area around it. The dust was propelled away from the LM at relatively vigorous velocities by the blast of the DPS exhaust, and fell back to the surface some distance away from the LM.

No dust evidence could possibly be in the vicinity of the LM. There's no air there to cause mixing and "clouds", which would, on Earth, result in swirling, lingering, and movement contrary to the impulse applied to the dirt, and thus, no dust whatsoever on the LM, or the landing pads, or anything like that. It was all blown away from that area.


The 16 mm film that was taken from the starboard window of the LM on descent clearly shows dust being blown away, and it also clearly shows that it totally disappears upon engine cutoff...which is completely natural...in vacuum. The end of the generated dust shoots off into the distance very much like water from a garden hose will shoot off from the nozzle when you cut it off. No water lingers and gets all over the area near the nozzle...it moves off into the distance and settles to the ground far away. The same thing happened to seared off lunar surface dust on the Moon that was blasted away by the LM DPS exhaust.

No, MID - your argument simply doesn't hold up. On the one hand, you claim....

"No dust evidence could possibly be in the vicinity of the LM."

"..the generated dust shoots off into the distance..."

But on the other hand, you (and postie) cite the photo below (which I've cropped & enlarged) as evidence for a "brightened swath" of disturbed dust, caused by the DPS exhaust.....



The (supposed) "brightened swath" in the photo extends directly out from one side of the LM itself. In other words, you're arguing that there is "dust evidence...in the vicinity of the LM".

Those are two completely contradictory arguments, MID. You can't have it both ways.

No. It means you can't address the actual points, so you've resorted to this claptrap.

Just thought you should know.

What's the point in replying to you anymore, Turbs?

1. you either don't "listen", you "misinterpret" or you simply ignore most of everything that is repeatedly explained to you.

2. you seem to lack basic reasoning and interpretation abilities and doggedly stick to your inane theories even when they are repeatedly proven to be incorrect.

3. you routinely re-hash points that have been discussed with you numerous times before.

4. you routinely get hung up on the most inconsequential of details and claim that the use of one term or another for some phenomena is proof of some grand conspiracy.

5. you NEVER have any kind of proof for your theories other than "I think it must have happened this way so it can't have happened any pother way"

So again... what's the point?


Cz

To be honest, Czero, most of your recent posts on this thread are pointless anyway.

Countless posts with a vague, irrelevant comment, and an emoticon.

The last issue you actually addressed was the "dust cloud". And I didn't make it into an issue to begin with - your pro-Apollo group did.

IIRC, your last position was that "dust sheet" is the proper, accurate term, not "dust cloud". You never backed up that claim.

You also said "dust cloud" was only a term used so lay people would understand it. You never backed up that claim, either.


If I'm mistaken, then cite the relevant posts.

If not, then please stop wasting everybody's time.

Turbo I want to know the top 5 reasons why you believe we never went to the moon.

~Thanato

I don't think you understand the differnce between the two things I've explained.
I am beginning to think this is either deliberate, or the result of some mental block that prohibits you from seeing what's been explained...thoroughly.
With all due respect, there isn't any relation between the two things you're talking about here.



This addresses your contention that there's no evidence of dust on the LM...no visible evidence of any blown dust anywhere around when your standing out there looking at close range.You cannot see any such blown dust. It's not there. It's was cast out in ballistic arcs way off in the distance. None could get on the LM, the footpads, the legs...because it wasn't swirling around in a cloud, it was blasting away from the LM, and not mixing with any atmospheric constituent. This is completely natural, and completely logical, given the environment.

I do not comprehend how you cannot understand this rather simple and natural fact, and, how you can somehow associate it with the next aspect you discuss:




No Turb...you're mis-interpreting, and fallaciously associating two different things.
This picture shows clear evidence of the surface which remained after the dust on it was, to varying degrees blown away.
This too is perfectly logical, and was documented graphically from lunar orbit, and by the crews who could get far enough away from the landing site to photograph it (to wit...the photo you see).


If you disturb the surface by blowing one degree or another of the dust away, which of course happened, you can see the effect of that, which is subtle, if you move off in the distance a good bit.

But you cannot see the dust that was blown away, or any evidence of it...since it's gone way and the hell out there someplace.

Both of these things are perfectly normal things. There is no contradiction, and there is no having it both ways, as you say. These two things are un-related.


You can't see this swath while you're standing in it, any more than you can see the brightened ejecta area around the rim of a crater when you're standing in it. You have to move way off in the distance to see the effect. You could land right in the rays of Tycho and you'd never be able to tell you were in one...standing in it. But we can see them clearly even from Earth.


I cannot but hope this makes sense, although frankly, it's all been explained rather clearly before. You seem to be so intent on showing that something's amiss that you've failed to read carefully and perceive the difference between these two things you've argued about. They're both perfectly logical and natural...


I also have no idea how any of this relates to a hoax...which is what your intent to-date seems to be...substantiating such a thing. But you do have a history of bringing forth some of the most picayune and obscure items in this effort. In those, at least you've related how they are associated with your contention, despite the fact that many of them were very obscure, and on occassion, something only you insited upon seeing, no matter what they really represented.

In this case, unless I've missed something, you haven't even related anything about the hoax. You're arguing about lunar surface dust without any association to your position.
All you've illustrated is that you don't understand that the disruption of the lunar surface in a swath extending from the point where the DPS exhaust began to the point where the DPS was shut down is perfectly natural, and has been observed. You also argue about the fact that no dust is observable on the LM, when it can't be on the LM because of simple physics.

This speaks to a lack of understanding, it doesn't speak to a hoax.
I'm not certain that you can, or should attempt to relate it to a hoax at this point. If you do, especially after the complete explanations that have shown you what you're looking at, and cannot possibly be any clearer, it will mean that you are deliberately refusing to understand and have descended into obstinance.

I hope you don't decide to do that.

Doesnt really matter. If we hadnt gotten to it then then we would have sooner or later seeing how advanced we're getting.

Turb, with all due respect, and with a reluctance to speak for Cz, I must say that I think Cz is merely tired of wasting his time.

He said this in his post:





In this case, this topic; that has been completely true.
You have done exactly that. In fact, in most of your belabored arguments, you have done that to one degree or another.

He also said this:



While that has been true concerning other issues, I'd have to say that although what you're mis-understanding here is relatively inconsequential in respect to the fact that it's just something you're not understanding...it hasn't been used in the context of any grand conspiracy...I can't see where you've tried to relate it to a Moon hoax. I do understand Cz's statement regarding the use of some term or another, and you have most certainly devoted alot of time to semantics...but none of that has been associated with a hoax conspiracy...it's been what can only be termed a fixation on terminology for reasons I can't perceive.

I would speculate that Cz is frustrated, which is certainly understandable...but I think if he's wasting anyone's time, he feels that it is his own.

He certainly hasn't wasted anyone else's time on this thread. He's contributed alot.

Well, we did, and we will again.
So in the context of this thread, it does actually matter, since this thread is based upon the contention that we didn't when we so obviously did.

There's an educational thrust here which many of us think is quite important, and in fact necessary, especially in this day and age...

MID

Thank you for your very long reply and for the history lesson on America, as I'm from the UK i needed that and found it very interesting.

As for dust on the lunar module I am going to look further in to that and take a close look at the helicopters in the Middle East and compare the dust that is kicked up by them, to see if this can help in this discussion.

Dan Dare

Hello turb. I did reply to your claims in my post here, but you seem to have ignored it. One of your posts follows immediately after mine, so I don't really see how you could have missed my response. Thought I'd point it out to you, though, in case you did just overlook it.

Or maybe you aren't fleshing out your arguments properly / concisely in your posts, leaving them open to various interpretations. But let's continue...



No, you're still missing my point - there is no evidence of dust being removed (disturbed by the DPS exhaust) all around the LM in the astronauts' photos.

The area directly below the LM should have much less dust (if any at all) compared to the adjacent undisturbed areas. But in the photos, it doesn't. And there should also be much less dust all around the LM than there is in the adjacent, undisturbed areas. But in the photos, it doesn't.

You claim that the dust was "cast out..way off in the distance", to account for the lack of evidence showing areas with more dust. Fine, let's go with that for now.

You also claim that standing at close range to the LM, there is "no visible evidence of any blown dust anywhere around....it's not there".

The photos show no evidence that all the dust (or any dust at all) has been blown away from the surface - either directly below the LM, or directly surrounding the LM.

The surface dust is just as thick all around the LM, and (most likely is), directly below the LM....as the dust we see everywhere else on the surface!

Consider the photos that show deep footprints left in the dust, right beside the LM. Compare them to photos of footprints anywhere else, away from the LM. They are no deeper than the footprints beside the LM. The same thing is true for the Rover tracks. The tracks near the LM are as deep as the tracks left anywhere else.

Do you understand what I'm getting at here, MID?

You say a huge amount of dust scatters far distances away from the LM, spreading a thin layer of dust over a very large surface area. This layer of dust is so thinly spread out that photos don't show any visible evidence of it.

Where did all this dust come from? Well, we know that the greatest amount of dust being disturbed (blown out far distances) was directly below, and all around, the LM landing point.

What's that again?!?

- the greatest amount of dust being disturbed was directly below and all around the LM.

That is, the greatest amount of dust being blown far away.....was from the area with thick dust and deep footprints!

Total nonsense.

I said...

The (supposed) "brightened swath" in the photo extends directly out from one side of the LM itself. In other words, you're arguing that there is "dust evidence...in the vicinity of the LM".



It's my fault for saying "dust evidence", when I meant "evidence of removed / displaced dust".



The areas where dust was blown to may be subtle. But the areas where dust was blown away from would be very obvious, and would be totally visible in photos taken at either close range or far away.

The DPS plume would have removed all (or much) of the dust where it contacted the surface directly, and the dust within the vicinity of direct contact. But the photos show no evidence of ANY dust being removed in the areas of greatest DPS plume contact (directly below/around the LM)



It should now be obvious how all of this relates to a hoax.

The photos show no evidence for all (or any) absence of dust, below and all around the LM, that the DPS plume had (supposedly) blown far away. The video shows it, and the astronauts describe it.

But the photos don't. And if the photos were faked (which they were), then the moon landings were faked.

The Clementine "black spot" issue also relates to a hoax, but to a lesser degree than the issue above.

Sorry. I did read it, but I didn't get back to addressing it. So I will now...

You said...

"I believe the photo record clearly shows evidence of regolith disturbance, both from the DPS plume and from crew activity."

Clearly, the photos do show evidence of crew activity. But not the DPS plume, as I just explained in my last post.

Peri - I'd like to focus on this issue first, before moving on to the rest of your post, if you don't mind.

What photos show evidence of the dust being disturbed by the plume?

Was the missing regolith to have originally been found, in what appears to be this slightly "filled in" crater? If they descended vertically, more or less, from about 40 feet, and did so over a bowl or depression filled with perhaps a foot or more of that material, maybe that might account for the origin of some of that displaced lunar soil. And, it just made the crater a tad less dusty.

The minus-Z strut is in the crater/depression. If the plus-Z indicates the direction of travel or translation during descent, they probably reached the edge of the crater or depression, at the very last seconds, and then settled down. It looks like they walked and dragged stuff all over it, too.









Link1
Link2

You're welcome Dan!


Looking at helicopters landing on dusty ground will be a great illustration of the difference vis-a-vis dust blown in an atmosphere and dust blown in vacuum, for sure. You'll see clouds...swirling, and lingering after the thrust has been cut off, and of course, depending on the wind, dust might be all over everything. Not so on the Moon.

Quod erat demonstrandum



Cz

sigh... okay, the whole argument about there not being evidence of missing dust under the LM is silly.

Even AT THE OPENING OF THE ENGINE BELL, there would only be a few PSI of pressure from the flow of the exhaust. It would spread out significantly before hitting the ground.

Moon dust is TINY. We're talking MICRONS tiny. what is happening is that the VERY UPPERMOST dust particles are being kicked up by the exhaust into ballistic trajectories as they leave the area of the exhaust. That's why the dust looks like a sheet - all the particles are moving out sideways after being pushed by the exhaust.

The dust is very dark (it doesn't always look it, remember its in full sunlight) and small amounts of it can make things darker. One of the Apollo missions touched down just one or two hundred meters from an old unmanned probe - they took pieces back in order to examine the effects of the space/lunar environment on the materials. The side facing the LM was covered with a miniscule sheen of dust - not a thick obscuring layer but just enough grains clinging to the material that you could see it as a different shade.

In conclusion all the engine did was scrape probably the fist couple millimeters of dust off the area under the LM and send it flying for kilometers in all directions. In addition the area around the LM was so disturbed by the astronauts later activities that I doubt you could find any evidence of this slight disruption.

Ahhh

"New place, same discussion."

Fact #1: Neither of this forum members have ever had access to an image taken on the moon surface.
Fact #2: There is a 99.9999999999999% probability that any of this forum members will ever have access to an image taken on the moon surface.
Fact #3: All images of "moon landing" missions revealed to the general public by NASA were taken on this planet.
Fact #4: Even if NASA' technology at the time of their "moon landing" missions would have been advanced enough, they would have no reason to reveal actual images. -All the contrary, they would have had too many reasons not to.
Fact #5: While everybody is waiting for a miracle by thinking The Government will ever release some actual information about the moon, almost nobody cares what is going on in the bottom of our oceans as well as in the Antartica.
Fact #6: Until today, there is not even one person that has obtained permission or invitation to go to the moon.
Fact #7: There is not even one reason that justify informing the general public about succesful moon landing operations (whenever they will occur).

For all of you truebelievers, go to the biggest telescope you can have access to, and look at the moon. You won't find any footprint, trail or piece of equipment from a NASA "moon landing" mission (known to the public).

Now, forget this and ask yourself: Do you really think that They couldn't have done a perfect fake moon landing? Do you really think that They couldn't have executed a perfect False Flag Operation during 09/11/2001?

If I were you, I would concentrate in finding why They did it the way they did it. -Why (contrary to what most of you believe) They do want you to realize that there is something fishy about... well, about everything! Once you get this, you will be able to see the real fence, the real wall.

Be safe,

G216

G216,

You have the most bizarre definition of what constitutes a "fact" that I have ever encountered.

One word...'resolution', one simply can't see anything that small on the surface of the moon via telescope.



Actually, MID can tell you "why 'They' did it the way 'They' did it"...but I suspect it's a bit of a different answer than you're alluding to.

We were in a space race with russia. They had already beaten us once and we would not let that happen again under no circumstances. Here is the biggest question of all. How could we get to the moon in 1969 yet cannot get back there in 2008. In the early 1990's when I was in college a proffesor that I had in astronomy Dr. Kuhn who had worked for NASA during the 60's told us that "man has never walked on the moon! If you believe it get out of my class!" he also went on to state that some in NASA claimed that they lost the instructions for the spaceship to get back to the moon. Bill Clinton in his book "NOT SURE THE NAME" said that a good friend of his believed that man had not been to the moon and had much evidence to back it. Clinton said that after reviewing it all that his friend "may have a point" Coming from a past president, those words are huge!!!

You had an ASTRONOMY PROFESSOR that said this? I sincerely hope that, in the interest of your own education, that you took his advice and left.

See we can get back to the moon in 2008, the only thing lacking is the drive. You cant just say, 'Hey lets go to the moon next year' then build the ship. You need to design it, test it, and then put it to use which takes time.

And about Clinton, dont you think that as a president he could of easily found it out with out speculation? Also as a President who isnt trained to know that.

~Thanato

I also had a professor that said that the hardest thing to do is to change the mind of a person who has already made up his or her mind. Getting pissed because I said quoted an award winning astronomer who worked for NASA is childish. Did I pee in your bowl of cornflakes? Closed minds should not be on this site, but on the other hand I was a firm believer of mans landing on the moon until I actually looked at the evidence. MOON ROCKS ARE NOT EVIDENCE!!! HOLLYWOOD FILMS ARE NOT EVIDENCE!! Presidents and award winning astronomers are evidence!! They cannot prove that man did not step on the moon, but I'd believe them before the angry who want to kick people who believe not.

A hoax believer drove me to drink and I didn't even have the decency to thank him.
(With apologies to W. C. Fields).

It's not worth destroying your liver for MID, there is not enough alcohol in the world to make the HBs point of view seem to make sense.

How can you possibly jusify this piece of nonsense? If moon rocks are not evidence that we went to the moon, exactly what is?

This is exactly the sort of claim made by the close minded.. it is the claim of someone that will not accept that the evidence contradicts their belief. It shows you to be EXACTLY what you are arguing others are.

Sorry bogcreeper, the open minded are those who come to a conclusion based on the available evidence not those that reject the available evidence because it contradicts their conclusion.

Bogcreeper,
There are thousands of university professors and award winning astronomers who not only "think" we went to the Moon, they "know" it. Their jobs, before becoming professors, was in space science, astronomy, and engineering and building spacecraft, including Apollo.
They know the hardware that did it. They know the space environment including the Van Allen belts, and the Lunar surface. They passed this knowledge on and today there is a thriving space industry, commercial and government, that relies on data used by Apollo. Many astronomers and geologists have studied the lunar samples and KNOW they did not come from Earth, and were not lunar "meteorites" that passed through Earth's atmosphere. The science doesn't lie, and it's not subjective.

Understanding that Apollo happened as advertised is not so incredible when you learn the basic science and engineering behind it all. It was a program that finds it's roots in Gallileo, Newton and Goddard. On the shoulders of giants...
...as for having "lost the instructions"...here is a link to just some of them...
http://www.geocities.com/bobandrepont/apollopdf.htm

Do you mind giving the full name and university of this "award winning astronomer who worked for NASA" so I can look him up and judge his credentials for myself?

I would also like to know the the name of the award that he won, and if it has anything to do with spaceflight or space science.

Yes, Turb, I do have this propensity to not flesh things out very completely...





There's plenty of photographic evidence of soil erosion at the base of the LM. The photos have been variously posted here.



This is another one of those, "should've been..." comments that defies qualification. How much should've been? How far out from the base of the LM? Why?






No, it is not, and this has been clearly illustrated. In many cases, hard substrate is clearly visible beneath the LM...it's not outside of the radius of impingement. This is an old, tired issue.



Yes.
However, you need to qualify how much dust should've been removed , and how much actually was, around the LM. You can't do that. It's merely logical that as the LM descended, the radius of impingement decreased. When the LM was at touchdown point, that radius was at its smallest, and only would've impinged on the dust beneath the LM., which it evidently did. What is so difficult to understand about this?

Further, it's been pointed out before, but impingement took place at varying degrees depending upon soil depth and actual level of thrust. Further, lunar soil is highly cohesive due to it's ragged crystaline character. The LM DPS sheared off varying amounts of this resistant dust on it's way down. Sometimes, the area beneath the LM was bare, sometimes, there was some dust left. How much should've been blown away?

You keep saying "should've", but you never qualify that...





Again, qualify your conclusion...
How thick was the dust all around the LM...at every site?
How thick was it at the footpads, and how thick was it 10 feet outboard?
How thick was it directly underneath...at each site?

What's nonsense is making declarations without having anything to substantiate them. This issue has been completely discussed in the past.




Only beneath the LM, where it is obvious in most cases...especially where all of it was blown away (pictures have already been posted of this).
How obvious should the sheared off dust at say, 100 feet aft of the LM be?
If you can't answer that, then your argument has no basis.

The area where the dust was blown to would be invisible.



Depends on how close to the surface and the duration the surface was exposed to the blast, and how deep it originally was. And, the photos do show clear evidence of dust being disturbed beneath the LM, as previously indicated.

Again, why would it have removed much or all of the dust, and where along the path would it have done that?





Well, that clarifies it.
However, you're absolutely wrong, as you will clearly note from all of the photos provided to date.

Thus, the hoax argument pertaining to these conclusions of yours is null and void. In fact, it was rendered that way long ago....this is a re-hash of old material.

This entire argument is nil unless you can show:

What the thrust of the LM DPS was at any given point during the terminal approach, where dust blowing occurred.

What the spread of the exhaust plume was at all points of altitude during that phase.

What the exhaust gas velocity was at nozzle base exit...similarly detailed.

What the velocity reduction and pressure reduction would've been for that exhaust gas based on altitude and spread of the plume at any given point.
The pressure of said gas on the surface, again, at all points in the terminal phase.

A quantitative description of the cohesiveness of the lunar soil, and a discussion of how said pressures would effect that soil...thus describing the depth of the soil all along that terminal phase, and just how much shear should've taken place at any given point.

And none of us know all that information, including you. Most of us could care less about such details. They're not necessary.

Thus, the argument based on "should've beens" is the only nonsense here. The evidence obviously shows dust shear along the path of impingement. The photos show dust disruption beneath the LM...how much is irrelevant. And no one can say how much should've been...only that it obviously was. The astronauts described it, the films show it happening, and the photos confirm it.

This argument of yours can't go any futher given the aformentioned facts.

Who says those rocks came from the moon (university professors)


Bogcreeper,
There are thousands of university professors and award winning astronomers who not only "think" we went to the Moon, they "know" it. Their jobs, before becoming professors, was in space science, astronomy, and engineering and building spacecraft, including Apollo.


(Their jobs, before becoming professors,)

lets not tell the whole truth they might make us professors ?????


Dan Dare

I would say I probably could...but...



Given this quote, I'd have to ask, "What (in his view) was the way they did it?" (most of us already know how it was done, and why...but this statement seems to indicate that he perceives something completely different than what is empirically shown to be the case...)
What does this fellow think was the way we did it?


I'd be interested in that...maybe


However, something smells of a young person who's been reading far too much Internet nonsense...

Not at all... this is where you can learn what you apparently are deficient in.


Whew...amazing.



Personally, I have a collection of them that predates this forum by decades...



Please, don't even attempt to prove that. It'll make you look very silly....




And please, don't even attempt to explain that!



No one of education, logic, and critical ability is awaiting any miracles. Nor are we awaiting the release of "actual information". It's all available to you, even, on-line today.



Uh...we didn't invite people. We selected people to train for such a mission. They applied, went through rigorous selection processes, and were chosen. Then, they trained their butts off, and got assigned to crews. Some of them went to the Moon.

Personally, I'd love to get an invitation, but in the real world, it doesn't, nor ever did, work that way.



Oh, of course not...save that they (the public) paid for it, they were (mostly) interested in it, and many followed the process like a hawk...no reason at all to let them know about it!
None, especially given the Cold War and all that stuff about the Soviets trying to land men on the Moon.



I see you're educated in matters astronomical. Bravo, G216!
As Lil said, it's resolution. There are no telescopes that could ever see such detail on the Moon...
Further, there are Hoax Believers here, and those who know something. There are no "truebelievers" on the Apollo side of the fence.



I would love to forget that your post ever happened!
But, as to your question....

Nope, they couldn't possibly have faked it. That's why they actually did it.

p.s., Leave 9-11 to the 9-11 threads...


Be safe,

G216

Being safe is what I shall now advise you to do.
This was not a very good way to introduce yourself to a thread that is about education...

HBs, by and large, know nothing about astronautics, celestial mechanics, and all that sort of thing. Your post indicates that you are in the class of 2008 in that regard.
Read the thread. Take your time.

We ask for questions, not nonsensical statements based upon a complete lack of knowledge.

Phrase your doubts as questions, and you'll get a response that will guide you not to belief, but to knowing something (knowledge is fun!). That's what we're about here.

LOL MID is right again, the amount of time spent on forums and the net would cure most all human problems if we were able to direct that much time and effort to it, So ? lets try to look at ways to show the younger posters how to reasearch the facts. but remember its for fun too ,with out that its dull.DONTEATUS

Take a little time and read this thread.
Your questions will be answered there.

The content of your posts points to a large scale lack of education in relevant subject matter, and a decidedly Internet mindset.


No one here wants to kick you in the pants for being a dummy.

What we'd like is for you not to come here and phrase tour lack of understanding in declarative terms to the contrary of the facts concerning the most voluminously documented occurrance in human history.

If you have doubts, ask questions about them.

Coming here and declaring that the Apollo program is fake will get you semi-trashed, at least...because you are dead wrong.
No one here is angry with you...amused perhaps, and probably a little distressed at another example of lack of critical thinking, and rational thought, as well as that amazingly prevalent CT mindset that accompanies it today.


Questions (think about it and phrase your doubts as questions...not declarations) will go a long way to helping you with the knowledge you lack in the approporiate subject matter.


(HINT: No astromomer will ever deny that Apollo happened, just as we said it did...unless of course, he smokes too much weed)

I've noticed that, Waspie...believe me!!!!



...hic!

It is fun, no?
Learning something is always fun.

Lord...if we never learned anything, how boring would this place be?!

The only silly argument is the one above.

If there is enough pressure from the DPS exhaust to blow the dust far distances in every direction, then it is certainly going to do more than "scrape the first couple of millimeters of dust...under the LM"!! That's ridiculous.

And you can't remove a couple of mm of dust from a small area and spread it a couple of mm over a much, much larger area. It's simply impossible.

How do you know that? You're asking me to quantify the amount of dust disturbed by the LM at various points, yet in the very same post, you come up with unqualified claims like this one.

And even if the area the dust was blown to "would be invisible", the area the dust was blown from would be very visible - which it is not.

You're the one claiming that the world's scientists, engineers, and historians are all wrong. Yes, we expect you to quantify your arguments. Perhaps some day you will. It would be a refreshing change from your current tactic of simply dismissing anything you don't agree with as "ridiculous," "nonsense," or "impossible."



Apollo 14 Frame AS14-66-9338



From the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal description of the above photo:

Ed Mitchell took this splendid picture after he and Al Shepard jettisoned the PLSSs in preparation for launch. Of particular interest are the tracks made by the crew and the MET during the traverse to the ALSEP deployment site and during the return to the LM. Apollo 17 astronaut Jack Schmitt speculates that the descent plume sweeps away the fine particles of soil, leaving a surface dominated by small rock fragments that reflect sunlight from the down-Sun direction and make the surface look lighter in color than normal. In places where the surface is disturbed, the normal reflectivity of the surface is restored. Whatever the detailed explanation for this phenomenon, it is related to the fact that, from orbit, the area immediately surrounding a LM looks noticeably lighter in color. The ALSEP Central Station is about 180m from the LM. Note the excursions the crew made around the rimless crater in the foreground and the large depression in the middle distance that they traversed in both directions.

And from the description for the nearly-identical AS14-66-9340:

Ed took this photograph out his LM window at some point after the completion of the second EVA. Note the dark-brown color of the soil disturbed by the crew as they walked. This phenomenon occurs only near the LM where the surface has been lightened by the Descent Engine plume.

Edited to adjust font size

It wasn't "the world's scientists, engineers, and historians" who made the claim that "the area where the dust was blown to would be invisible." MID made the claim, and he didn't qualify it.

You are oblivious to the double standard here.

It would be "a refreshing change" if you would actually hold yourself to the same standards you expect from me.