|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Jan 10, 2012 1:28:08 GMT -4
Phil Webb, a Pro-NASA moon landing supporter, suggested an experiment via PM that I found interesting. With credit to him, despite his claims that it was unnecessary, I was able to conduct a quick and easy experiment. My experiment is labeled on youtube as: "Why Lunar Regolith can hold distinct prints while sand cannot." Here is the video showing the reason why abrasive and sharp particled lunar regolith simulant or the real stuff is able to hold prints without collapsing. This COMPLETELY invalidates Ralph Rene's hoax claims and I believe this experiment, along with several others, should finally put that ignorant hoax claim about boot prints to rest. Without further reading, here is Webb's idea under my execution. If you think a part of this needs revising, by all means, let me know. However, I think the results of this experiment were sufficient proof that the jagged particle structure alone was the defining factor in the formation of this famous print.
|
|
|
Post by abaddon on Jan 10, 2012 13:20:49 GMT -4
Ok, well done. I guess that explains your simulant thread. I think the HB crew will get you on two scores (or at least try). 1. It's a simulant and therefore not a valid test. 2. At the end of the video, the impressions left are not clearly that distinguishable, one to the other, at youtube resolutions. Now, to my eyes anyway, I can clearly see what you are showing. I bet it was almost a fingerprint in the simulant, but you better believe the HB crew will go that way. Perhaps, for that purpose, you might consider adding a "moon boot" simulant. Not literally an miniature moon boot, but any object which would leave a clearly identifiable pattern in the simulant, but not the sand. Just a thought. Like the phillwebb acolade at the end. ;D
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 11, 2012 1:30:12 GMT -4
I have to suggest you invest in a tripod, I think I need some Sea Legs tablets.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Jan 11, 2012 10:44:57 GMT -4
I have to suggest you invest in a tripod, I think I need some Sea Legs tablets. I have one, but I had to move the camera because I hadn't yet dumped the simulant and my camera was charging.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jan 11, 2012 13:48:50 GMT -4
I have to suggest you invest in a tripod, I think I need some Sea Legs tablets. Seriously! I have taken photos of distinct boot and shoe prints made in dry soil of a couple kinds. One was in fluffy fine silt in Montana, every body called it "moon dirt" because it was so weird. I've also taken similar pix of crisp prints in the silt in my yard. I took this one in Mexico, down on the Yucatan. The "soil" there is composed almost exclusively of particles of limestone, formed by erosion from larger pieces. Because the limestone dissolves it has very complex shapes, rough surfaces and jagged edges. We don't have a camera adapter for RocketBoy2.0's microscope so I can't show it, but even beach sand from limestone is surprisingly unround.
|
|
|
Post by Vincent McConnell on Jan 11, 2012 23:23:50 GMT -4
I have taken photos of distinct boot and shoe prints made in dry soil of a couple kinds. One was in fluffy fine silt in Montana, every body called it "moon dirt" because it was so weird. I've also taken similar pix of crisp prints in the silt in my yard. You should have collected several samples for specific analysis. Who knows. The stuff may have been good to debunk some of the hoax claims.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jan 12, 2012 15:10:49 GMT -4
I have taken photos of distinct boot and shoe prints made in dry soil of a couple kinds. One was in fluffy fine silt in Montana, every body called it "moon dirt" because it was so weird. I've also taken similar pix of crisp prints in the silt in my yard. You should have collected several samples for specific analysis. Who knows. The stuff may have been good to debunk some of the hoax claims. I brought back plenty of samples, but then I washed my uniform and cleaned my boots I took pictures.
|
|