Uncomprehensible apollo photographs

[AtomicDog]

Read the book.

Saying, "read the book" is not presenting evidence.

Present your evidence.

[MID]

Thanks MID that does make sense, for sure !!!

I know this was covered in the other very lengthy thread, but would not this explanation of the dust settlement taking very little time mean, taking a closer look as to why there was no dirt/dust on the lunar landers landing pads. They are almost bowl shaped and should have captured some of this "dust" but yet they look like a brand new car just off the showroom floor?

I know that there is no atmosphere on the moon but would not the blast from a landing kick alot up and that blast would create almost a bit of swirl, considering that gas's where being burnt and possibly creating a swirl around the legs themselves and or imperfections in the ground? There had to be some off gassing upon landing creating a very temporary gas like swirl? as these gases or vapor's fired out of the LEM. ??? IMO i think there should be dirt/dust on or in the landers pads? just curious..

You're very welcome, Silver...

I think flyingswan did a darn good job explaining this one.

I think the principal here is that dust is not "kicked up", as we are used to seeing on Earth. It is rather, sprayed out in a linear fashion...in this case of course by the engine exhaust gas.

There is of course a gas, as-it-were, coming out of the engine bell. It is striking the ground and bouncing off, carrying some of the dust with it, and propelling all of the dust outward radially (in other words, in all directions from the LM).

This gas diffuses very quickly in vacuum, so there is not much chance of it suspending particles for very long, if at all.

The dust sprays out in a sheet-like fashion. Additionally, LM DPS cutoff was generally done a few feet off the surface, and the LM settled down to land. As soon as the exhaust is stopped (the impulse moving the dust, that is), the dust ceases to move.

What is seen visually is the last of the dust rapidly moving away from the LM and disappearing out toward the horizon, as it follows its ballistic arc. Neil Armstrong commented about this visual impression during the technical debriefs following Apollo 11. Rationally, he understood that this was what should be expected, but never having seen the effect before (no one ever had), it was noteworthy to mention.

I like to describe it in relation to a garden hose here on Earth.

Set the nozzle to a sharp stream and spray it out away from you. Then, cut it off. What you will see is the end of the stream disappearing off into the distance. The movement of dust blasted out by the LM DPS engine on the Moon is very much like that. Once the thrust is cut off, the last of the dust moves away from you, and disappears in the distance, just like the end of the water stream from the garden hose.

Thus, there's no dust around the LM at all when it lands, save that which is left on the surface. That's basically the reason why there's nothing on the foot pads.

[MID]

I'm referring to those skeptics who will think up an explaination, back it with a little bit of logic and toss it out there, then call the believer unscientific and leave. They're being unscientific as well, and it p***es me off. Believe me, I don't believe in a moon landing hoax, I'm just talking about things in general, and mostly about Ghosts.

OK,

So a "skeptic" is one who debunks hoax believers ("believers"). I always wondered about that. I always thought the hoax proponents were the skeptical ones.

I know the type you're talking about. People who "believe" we landed on the Moon, but have only a certain amount, or perhaps little knowledge about the topic, may say things in support of Apollo which create more doubts than answers.

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing... describes that type. It is of course valid both ways. A vivid imagination, a propensity for believing everything the Government says is a lie, and little knowledge of the subject matter is the primary impetus for the hoax "believer's" ideas. A little knowledge can also produce an Apollo "believer" who's arguments against the hoax "believer" are not enough to do much but cause controversy and doubt.

Fortunately, I do not belong to either camp. I know what the hoax "believer" believes. I also know what happened during Apollo, and how (in many areas). I do not believe anything. I either know it, or I do not. Apollo was not about belief, nor is understanding it about belief. It is about knowledge.

Thus, I attempt to fill the gaps in that knowledge which produces the oftimes outlandish theories put forth in support of an Apollo hoax. As I've said before, hoax theories are essentially based upon lack of technical knowledge in the subject matter.

They are understandable ideas in a way, as most people weren't involved, or are not involved in such technical and scientific areas, and most hoax "believers" weren't around then, and haven't been exposed to anything quite that compelling in their lives.

Thanks for clarifying this "skeptic" term. I don't include myself in that category, because skepticism implies something that "doesn't smell right" to the skeptic, and that is always true about hoax theories. However, being a skeptic also implies that the skeptic doesn't "believe" what the other side is saying.

I don't "not believe" what the hoax believers are saying. I know that what they're saying is incorrect, for logical reasons.

But at least I'll know who's being talked about when I hear the terms "believer" and "skeptic".

[donrobison]

I see trax they form a semi-circle at the rear of the vehicle.

[straydog]

GETTING BACK ON TOPIC THEN .. AND SPEAKING OF "UNCOMPREHENSIBLE APOLLO PHOTOGRAPHS"

CHECK THESE OUT .... CAN ANYONE SAY FAKE ?

[DogsHead]

You just can't help yourself can you Strawdog? When Waspie said relevant, I kinda think he meant relevant to this discussion, not the other one that is apparently continuing in your head. This discussion is about the images that Metz Moonflash posted. Perhaps you'd like to talk about those before hijacking the thread?

Cheers

Metz Moonflash; can I ask, what it would mean to you if there were no tracks in that photo? Would that be final evidence of a hoax, or are you just interested as to why the tracks are hard to see?

[Waspie_Dwarf]

You just can't help yourself can you Strawdog? When Waspie said relevant, I kinda think he meant relevant to this discussion

Actually I was talking in general terms about cut and paste articles.

I do not see why straydog's last post is off topic, it is a lot more on topic than a fair few of the posts in this thread, although Metz Moonflash, as OP, would be a better judge of that.

not the other one that is apparently continuing in your head.

This is the sort of comment I suspect you would find unacceptable if leveled at you by a hoax believer. Please refrain from these sort of comments.

Edited October 20, 2006 by Waspie_Dwarf

[straydog]

You are accusing me of "hijacking" this thread when NOBODY ELSE WAS ON TOPIC ? ... Unbelievable ! ... At least my post was about "Uncomprehensible Photographs" and not the long winded fantasies of someone who "knows that Apollo went to the moon " ...

But if it's TRACKLESS LUNAR BUGGYS you want , then it TRACKLESS LUNAR BUGGYS you will get !

More Apollo photos faked on a MOON SET !!

[AtomicDog]

AS17-137-20979

Just thought that folks would like to see a nice high quality version of that last photo.

Here is the caption from the ALSJ:

"Picture of the replacement fender taken at about 143:46:34 by Gene Cernan, just before driving off from Station 2. Jack Schmitt is already seated. The dust-coated- originally-blue Traverse Gravimeter is mounted on the back of the Rover just above the replacement fender. Gene took this photo, in part, to document its condition after the 9.1 kilometer drive out from the LM and, in part, to document his handiwork. At the end of EVA-3 Gene decided to bring the fender back to Earth and, as of the late 1990s, it was still on display at the National Air & Space Museum in Washington D.C. Ron Creel has provided a summary ( 1.3 Mb PDF ) of the fender extension losses that occurred on all three Rover missions. Scan by Kipp Teague."

Just a shadetree mechanic, (oops - no shade) kicking dust around his buggy and admiring his repair job.

Edited October 20, 2006 by AtomicDog

[DogsHead]

My appologies Staydog, Waspie.

Thank you Atomic, for the explanation as to why there ARE NO TRACKS IN THAT PHOTO provided last in the series by Straydog.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

You are accusing me of "hijacking" this thread when NOBODY ELSE WAS ON TOPIC ? ... Unbelievable !

straydog, this has already been dealt with, let it drop.

and not the long winded fantasies of someone who "knows that Apollo went to the moon " ...

And please leave out the little digs while you are at it, thank you. What is the point of me asking people not to insult you if, in your very next post, you are going to throw insults at someone else?

[flyingswan]

GETTING BACK ON TOPIC THEN .. AND SPEAKING OF "UNCOMPREHENSIBLE APOLLO PHOTOGRAPHS"

CHECK THESE OUT .... CAN ANYONE SAY FAKE ?

Do we really need another re-posted example of Jack White's incompetance? 120 degree difference? More like half that, hardly surprising a long arm is still on the same side. And as for the lower pair of photos, why shouldn't a near-by object get larger relative to a distant one as you approach? Park you car two hundred metres from a background building and walk away. The car will look twice as large from ten metres away as it does from twenty, but with the comparable distances to the background building 210 and 220 metres, it will look much the same. Why can't Jack recognise such an everyday phenomenon?

[phunk]

Do we really need another re-posted example of Jack White's incompetance? 120 degree difference? More like half that, hardly surprising a long arm is still on the same side. And as for the lower pair of photos, why shouldn't a near-by object get larger relative to a distant one as you approach? Park you car two hundred metres from a background building and walk away. The car will look twice as large from ten metres away as it does from twenty, but with the comparable distances to the background building 210 and 220 metres, it will look much the same. Why can't Jack recognise such an everyday phenomenon?

Not to mention the obvious difference in angle between the camera and the 2 objects. Do the same experiment with the car and building, only this time walk away from the car to the side. Now the car looks half the size and you're still the same distance from the building!

[Hazzard]

I just cant believe that some people still believe in this silly CT. Didnt MID start a thread a wile back were everyone could ask any question they wanted about the Apollo moonlandings...?

[straydog]

My appologies Staydog, Waspie.

Thank you Atomic, for the explanation as to why there ARE NO TRACKS IN THAT PHOTO provided last in the series by Straydog.

DogsHead .... Apology accepted .. thanks .. and I apologize also for my unnecessary post comments .... but AtomicDog's high resolution photo of the bottom photo I posted only explains the lack of tire tracks in that ONE photo of Apollo 17 , NOT the top two photos above of the trackless buggy from Apollo 15 .... So your comment about explaining the lack of tire tracks in the last "series" of pictures I posted is incorrect .

Wanna give the Apollo 15 photo a high resolution shot too fellow Dog ?

DogsHead ... AtomicDog ... straydog .... Very weird dog stuff going on here .

[RabidCat]

Saying, "read the book" is not presenting evidence.

Present your evidence.

Read the book. Design a test model. Run the test model. Make a decision whether it works based on the test results.

I cannot justify spoon-feeding any more. I don't get paid for it. Moreover, all that happens is that arguments ensue, attempting to prove/disprove the theory/operation of any such devices.

If you can't do more than argue about it without reading the book/reading the patent, then crawl back to your hole.

[AtomicDog]

Read the book. Design a test model. Run the test model. Make a decision whether it works based on the test results.

I cannot justify spoon-feeding any more. I don't get paid for it. Moreover, all that happens is that arguments ensue, attempting to prove/disprove the theory/operation of any such devices.

If you can't do more than argue about it without reading the book/reading the patent, then crawl back to your hole.

You are the one bringing antigravity in to explain the lack of tracks from a wheeled vehicle in a photograph, and are advancing this theory over than the far more ordinary one of astronauts kicking dirt over them. There is plenty of evidence for astronauts kicking dirt; it is up to you to present some for antigravity, which, so far, you have refused to do. If you can't be bothered, well, that just illustrates the quality of your argument.

[straydog]

AS17-137-20979

Just thought that folks would like to see a nice high quality version of that last photo.

Here is the caption from the ALSJ:

"Picture of the replacement fender taken at about 143:46:34 by Gene Cernan, just before driving off from Station 2. Jack Schmitt is already seated. The dust-coated- originally-blue Traverse Gravimeter is mounted on the back of the Rover just above the replacement fender. Gene took this photo, in part, to document its condition after the 9.1 kilometer drive out from the LM and, in part, to document his handiwork. At the end of EVA-3 Gene decided to bring the fender back to Earth and, as of the late 1990s, it was still on display at the National Air & Space Museum in Washington D.C. Ron Creel has provided a summary ( 1.3 Mb PDF ) of the fender extension losses that occurred on all three Rover missions. Scan by Kipp Teague."

Just a shadetree mechanic, (oops - no shade) kicking dust around his buggy and admiring his repair job.

On second thought ... Wouldn't the lunar buggy have had to have DRIVEN UP to the place where the fender was repaired , thus leaving TIRE TRACKS in the dirt behind it ? ...

Here is nasa's quote .."Gene took this photo, in part, to document its condition AFTER THE 9.1 KILOMETER DRIVE OUT FROM THE LM and, in part, to document his handiwork ."

And then with all of that fender "repair" activity taking place , don't you think there would have been more bootprints in the dirt around the tire with the broken fender ? ... So if they were at STATION 2 , then that means they DROVE there from STATION ONE one .... RIGHT ?

Like my daddy aways used to say ; "If you want to expose a lie , you can't go to the SOURCE of that lie and expect to find an honest answer" ... or an honest explaination either . ....

[phunk]

I can see at least 8 or 9 partial prints in that pic. The problem is you'll only see the last few because each step that kicks up dust is going to disturb the previous ones.

[AtomicDog]

Yeah. If boots can kick over tire tracks, why can't they kick over other bootprints?

[RabidCat]

You are the one bringing antigravity in to explain the lack of tracks from a wheeled vehicle in a photograph, and are advancing this theory over than the far more ordinary one of astronauts kicking dirt over them. There is plenty of evidence for astronauts kicking dirt; it is up to you to present some for antigravity, which, so far, you have refused to do. If you can't be bothered, well, that just illustrates the quality of your argument.

And the quality of your argument is nil. Since you are unwilling to advance your knowledge of this, why should I make the attempt? Further, why should I care what you think. If, in fact, you are willing to do some of your own research, then it might be worthwhile to continue this; since you are not, and wish to remain completely ignorant of the subject, it is a waste of time.

[AtomicDog]

And the quality of your argument is nil. Since you are unwilling to advance your knowledge of this, why should I make the attempt? Further, why should I care what you think. If, in fact, you are willing to do some of your own research, then it might be worthwhile to continue this; since you are not, and wish to remain completely ignorant of the subject, it is a waste of time.

You make the claim, you bring the evidence. I brought mine; where's yours?

"Wishing to remain completely ignorant of the subject" is a definition of asking you to present your argument that is novel to me.

Edited October 20, 2006 by AtomicDog

[MID]

I just cant believe that some people still believe in this silly CT. Didnt MID start a thread a wile back were everyone could ask any question they wanted about the Apollo moonlandings...?

Yes, he did, haz...

But that is in the Space and Astronomy section.

HBs tend to avoid such places. And besides, the issues brought up in places like this, generally...don't exactly constitute scientific questions.

Upon providing a detailed explanation, I then to get certain replies which avoid anything said and charactarize me as a "master of NASA disinformation", or perhaps a "high level" comment about my long winded fantasies...

I'm rather doubting that I would get "questions" from these types....

[MID]

Like my daddy aways used to say ; "If you want to expose a lie , you can't go to the SOURCE of that lie and expect to find an honest answer" ... or an honest explaination either . ....

Unfortunately, that rationale only applies when certain criteria are met by the party attempting to expose the alleged lie:

If you want to expose a lie, you must prove that a lie has taken place...

One cannot know the source of a lie unless one knows there is a lie. Proving it is thus exposing it. In the absence of that, one is merely speculating.

You see, the one attempting to expose a lie must have enough knowledge concerning the subject of the alleged lie to go to the suspected source, and prove them a liar...by proving that their statements are in fact deliberately false.

If one is not possessed of the requisite expertise that will allow them to expose such a lie, one generally finds oneself exposing him or herself...not as a liar, per-se, but as one who is ill-prepared and unknowledgable. The accuser then tends to look silly.

This is especially true when one attempts to prove a lie in a case there never was one, and in which substantiation to the contrary of the supposed lie is spectacularly voluminous and confirmed by authorites with requisite knowledge the world over.

In other words, you can't go to the source of a suspected lie and do anything at all unless you're prepapred to prove them liars. If you know there is a lie, you wouldn't be going to the liars for honest answers or explanations anyway. You'd go to them to show them how they were liars...and that of course, is not something you can do.

[straydog]

Yeah. If boots can kick over tire tracks, why can't they kick over other bootprints?

My fellow Dog .. If that's the best you can come with for trying to explain away the absence of the lunar buggy tracks in these faked Apollo photos , then maybe you need to do some more research at clavius .... I'm sure they must have a few good excuses for this very strange anomaly ... but if not , you can always go the Space and Astronomy forum here and ask the master some questions about how NASA managed to design lunar buggys that make tracks in 'moon' dust , only when the photoshop artists remembered to put them in the phony Apollo photos .

Speaking of which , I see that instead of staying on topic here and answering the question of why the lunar buggy tire tracks are missing from these faked Apollo photos , the master decided to give a long winded lecture on my inability to expose the liars at NASA instead .