Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 13, 2007 10:04:59 GMT -4
Oh, one more thing, Rocky...
Why couldn't Apollo land astronauts on the Moon?
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Aug 13, 2007 10:05:36 GMT -4
I know you people are not going to recognize anything but you pretty much destroyed you credibility when you said it was impossible to make sand dust-free.
You credibility is gone and your not recognizing it means nothing to thinking people.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 13, 2007 10:06:11 GMT -4
I would say your plan is vastly more complicated than it needs to be. If I were going to make a film set of a location that no human has ever seen before I would be free to make it look any way I want. I could leave out problematic things like dust and just create a scene where the terrain is solid rock, and no one would suspect it was incorrect. If they knew dust would be a problem why would NASA put it everywhere? It is logical flaws like that that make your theories look ridiculous. You actually end up making it obvious that the moon landings really did happen.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Aug 13, 2007 10:14:50 GMT -4
You can't be serious. Nobody would have bought that.
Anyway, people already knew that there is dust on the surface of the moon from the unmanned Russian probe.
|
|
|
Post by BertL on Aug 13, 2007 10:18:15 GMT -4
So are you saying that the treated sand I described would produce a cloud of dust when driven over? Would it be as dense as a cloud produced by driving down a dry dirt road on a hot day? Exactly how dense would it be? What kind of question is that? How can we know what kind of cloud your dust produces when your dust is made out of entirely hypothetical handwaving?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Aug 13, 2007 10:18:58 GMT -4
Here's a question for you pro-apollo people. Here's an answer. Right. So now you have heavy grains only, what exactly stops them in their horizontal motion? You said it was air, but you've ust filtered all those particles small enough to be affected by air in a significant way out. So what explains your particle motion? I think you are utterly deluded, frankly, or are simply yanking our chains. You want us to accept that NASA laid down special dust free sand in certain areas on a set so they could get nice shots of the rover driving around, but laid down special dust that would be fine enough to be aerosolised in other places in order to get nice shots of footprints in the dust, and that they did this in parts of the same set so they could have both footprints and sand kicked up by the rover in the same shot. But then for other shots they did drive the rover across the fine dust because we see footprints around the rover. Why should we accept such an absurdly convoluted scenario over the rather simpler explanation that you just have no idea what you are looking at. I'll ask again: why do you not understand that you are not looking at a single particle trajectory in the rover footage, but instead a cloud formed by millions of tiny particles all following different trajectories that just happen to have overlapped enough to be dense enough to show up on the film? Or, to ask another way, where is the single particle whose trajectory you can calculate (as in fact you claimed to have done so early on in this thread)?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Aug 13, 2007 10:20:30 GMT -4
You can't be serious. Nobody would have bought that. Anyway, people already knew that there is dust on the surface of the moon from the unmanned Russian probe. Cobblers. They knew there was dust on that part of the Moon. Why not just tell the guy on the street that dust is not found in certain areas and those are the ones we want to land in because dust causes probelms, then leave dust out of the Apollo footage altogether?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Aug 13, 2007 10:35:25 GMT -4
Rocky, I again request that you either provide solid evidence or retract your claim that we are paid to defend Apollo. In the absence of evidence you are further required to apologize to the members of this forum for making these unfounded accusations. You have already been warned by the moderator that failure to do so will result in a permanent ban. So here's the deal: I will ban Rocky for one month if he doesn't do one of the following within 24 hours of his next login: a) provide irrefutable evidence to support his accusation that we are paid to defend Apollo -- or -- b) withdraw the accusation with a sincere apology to everyone Since none of Rocky's post actually constituted "proof" (just more unfounded accusations) he has been banned for 30 days. If he continues to make these accusations upon his return he will be banned permanently.
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Aug 13, 2007 10:38:38 GMT -4
I'm referring to the stand everybody had taken about why the dust doesn't billow after the rover drove over it.
You all say it didn't billow because there was no atmosphere. I say it didn't billow because there were no dust-sized particles in it that were light enough to float. All the particles were heavy enough to simply fall back to the ground.
It would have been very possible to put dust-free sand in selected places where there wouldn't be any footprints--even right next to a place where there would be a footprint. Also, if the rover is driving slowly enough, even in sand with dust-sized particles there wouldn't be a cloud of dust.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 13, 2007 10:42:09 GMT -4
Rocky,
I want to see a retraction and apology to everyone you have accused to being a government agent. You have until the end of the day tomorrow, or you will be banned permanently.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Aug 13, 2007 10:43:19 GMT -4
You all say it didn't billow because there was no atmosphere. I say it didn't billow because there were no dust-sized particles in it that were light enough to float. All the particles were heavy enough to simply fall back to the ground. Then how were they light enough to have their horizontal motion stopped by the air as you claim right at the start of this thread? But WHY would they do it? It's an absurdly complex scenario you have created just to explain what you think you see, and you prefer to believe that rather than examine the possibility that you are simply wrong. Answer my question about that single dust particle whose trajectory you calculated.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 13, 2007 10:44:19 GMT -4
It would have been very possible to put dust-free sand in selected places where there wouldn't be any footprints--even right next to a place where there would be a footprint. Also, if the rover is driving slowly enough, even in sand with dust-sized particles there wouldn't be a cloud of dust. How do they make it dust free where the rover drove, and yet still able to hold an impression of the rover's tires? Another contraction in your theory... where's your objectivity?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Aug 13, 2007 10:48:11 GMT -4
Rocky, since it is obvious, and you have admitted, that you haven't seen the vast majority of the Apollo visual record, including photographs, film and TV footage, why don't you stop trying to invent scenarios that have to become ever more complex with every new bit of information you are given and actually go and LOOK at the record yourself?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 13, 2007 10:51:49 GMT -4
...you pretty much destroyed you credibility when you said it was impossible to make sand dust-free.
We have explained in detail many times how your scenario would fail to produce dust-free sand. You keep simply repeating it as if the repetition somehow makes the argument more sound. When you can explain how to get the sand from your sifting/washing apparatus onto a truck, haul it, dump it, and spread it without creating more dust, then you may continue the discussion.
Many of us have seen this phenomenon first hand. You have not. You refuse to do any experiment to demonstrate that your method works as you say. When there are credible reasons why it will not, that experiment is absolutely essential
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Aug 13, 2007 10:53:40 GMT -4
All the particles were heavy enough to simply fall back to the ground.
And therefore not small enough to be stopped by the wall of air. You haven't resolved the inherent contradiction in your claim. You keep waffling back and forth. Self-contradictory claims are automatically rejected in the real world, Rocky.
|
|