ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: godscountry on May 20, 2016, 08:58:29 AM
-
This is the link to a article in popsci magazine about the two scientists work.http://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/proof-we-landed-moon-dust
I believe Nature magazine also did a article on the scientist's work.A good reference is the documentary [For All Mankind]which has some high res shots of the Rover in operation.A lot of the footage is from the NASA frozen film archive.
-
Good link! The dust really is the clincher. Pretty much any time you see the astronauts shuffling around you can see them kick plumes of dust that fly surprisingly far (indicating low gravity) and do not billow (proof of vacuum). One of my favorite examples is from Apollo 16 Station 11 (North Ray Crater) when John Young falls and struggles to get up (1:14 in this video clip (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/a16v.1665725.mpg)).
8)
-
Another thought
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=945.msg38190#msg38190
-
I love watching the dust plumes from the LRV. They're almost mesmerizing in their pure expression of aggregate ballistics. Then I contrast that with practically everything else I see in the desert where I live, where anything stronger than flatulence raises an aerosol cloud that takes minutes to dispel.
Next week I should have about 2,000 CPU cores not doing anything for a few days. Maybe a large-scale simulation and visualization would be the ticket.
-
No, but the sand was washed and sifted, and there was no dust! What do you mean, that's physically impossible? And also makes no sense?
-
For motion of the dust in the vacuum and low gravity I love this clip from Apollo 15:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk5GiF_mX5w
Skip forward to the 6 minute mark or so...
-
I love watching the dust plumes from the LRV. They're almost mesmerizing in their pure expression of aggregate ballistics. Then I contrast that with practically everything else I see in the desert where I live, where anything stronger than flatulence raises an aerosol cloud that takes minutes to dispel.
Next week I should have about 2,000 CPU cores not doing anything for a few days. Maybe a large-scale simulation and visualization would be the ticket.
hunbacked has never been in a desert in real life, hence his poor visualizations skills with dust/clouds
-
I just want to know how Jay knows how dust behaves around-
Wait, no, never mind, I really don't...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I just want to know how Jay knows how dust behaves around-
Wait, no, never mind, I really don't...
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
From years of observances ::)
-
I love watching the dust plumes from the LRV. They're almost mesmerizing in their pure expression of aggregate ballistics. Then I contrast that with practically everything else I see in the desert where I live, where anything stronger than flatulence raises an aerosol cloud that takes minutes to dispel.
Next week I should have about 2,000 CPU cores not doing anything for a few days. Maybe a large-scale simulation and visualization would be the ticket.
hunbacked has never been in a desert in real life, hence his poor visualizations skills with dust/clouds
I have. Dust gets absolutely everywhere. The clouds of dust were somewhat overshadowed by the clouds of poorly conditioned flare stacks.
-
I love watching the dust plumes from the LRV. They're almost mesmerizing in their pure expression of aggregate ballistics. Then I contrast that with practically everything else I see in the desert where I live, where anything stronger than flatulence raises an aerosol cloud that takes minutes to dispel.
Next week I should have about 2,000 CPU cores not doing anything for a few days. Maybe a large-scale simulation and visualization would be the ticket.
hunbacked has never been in a desert in real life, hence his poor visualizations skills with dust/clouds
It's not even as though you need to go to the desert to watch the effect of dust.
Just drive along any dirt track in Australia and watch the dust just hang in the air behind you.
Several years ago I saw rally cars racing along dirt tracks on a hillside on the edge of Canberra. For a short time the dust clouds hung above the tracks. But over the following minutes the clouds gradually drifted down the hillside. It was almost mesmerising in its gradual inevitability.
-
Heck, you get it on dirt tracks in Washington State, unless what you're on is a mud track.
-
Next week I should have about 2,000 CPU cores not doing anything for a few days. Maybe a large-scale simulation and visualization would be the ticket.
I made a crude spreadsheet model when hearing Collier's claims that the rooster tails were not perfectly parabolic. Of course, if one accounts for the small fact that the particles of dust do not all have the same launch angle from the LRV wheels, then one never gets a perfect trajectory when observing the sum of all the individual particle trajectories. I randomised the angle of launch within a few degrees of a fixed angle, and plotted the dust particle trajectories. The overlapping trajectories appeared flattened, in accord with Collier's claims that they were meeting an atmosphere, but only by virtue that the particles all followed a different path as a result of different launch angle. (I think that makes sense).
-
Next week I should have about 2,000 CPU cores not doing anything for a few days. Maybe a large-scale simulation and visualization would be the ticket.
I made a crude spreadsheet model when hearing Collier's claims that the rooster tails were not perfectly parabolic. Of course, if one accounts for the small fact that the particles of dust do not all have the same launch angle from the LRV wheels, then one never gets a perfect trajectory when observing the sum of all the individual particle trajectories. I randomised the angle of launch within a few degrees of a fixed angle, and plotted the dust particle trajectories. The overlapping trajectories appeared flattened, in accord with Collier's claims that they were meeting an atmosphere, but only by virtue that the particles all followed a different path as a result of different launch angle. (I think that makes sense).
So the particle interactions lost some of their velocities?
-
Summary page:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/media/projects/ccldas/ldap_2012/pdf/presentations/Hsu_S.pdf
Full report:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258468670_Tracking_Lunar_Dust_-_Analysis_of_Apollo_Footage
-
Not related to the rooster tails, but concerning dust accumulation.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253621993_Lunar_Dust_Effects_on_Spacesuit_Systems_Insights_from_the_Apollo_Spacesuits
-
The truth,we really shouldn't have to go to these extremes to prove the validity of the Apollo missions I was watching a short film clip of the LEM ascending up over the lunar landscape,back up to the CM and I noticed the surface was imprinted with rover tracks, foot prints,etc,that alone is proof enough I'm not a image specialist ,nor do I know a lot about computer generated images,but I'm smart enough to know,you could not of faked images of that clarity and detail in 1972.We just didn't have the equipment ,nor did we have the imaging software.If your still not convinced,compare Kubrick's 2001 Space Odyssey sci fi film to some of the scenes in the documentary,For All Mankind,which used footage taken from NASA's frozen film archive .You don't need to be a PhD image specialist or anything for that matter, to figure out which scenes are the real images filmed in space.I'm sorry but anybody arguing the images validity is really is being ignorant to the facts,you just can't deny evidence like this.
-
Next week I should have about 2,000 CPU cores not doing anything for a few days. Maybe a large-scale simulation and visualization would be the ticket.
I made a crude spreadsheet model when hearing Collier's claims that the rooster tails were not perfectly parabolic. Of course, if one accounts for the small fact that the particles of dust do not all have the same launch angle from the LRV wheels, then one never gets a perfect trajectory when observing the sum of all the individual particle trajectories. I randomised the angle of launch within a few degrees of a fixed angle, and plotted the dust particle trajectories. The overlapping trajectories appeared flattened, in accord with Collier's claims that they were meeting an atmosphere, but only by virtue that the particles all followed a different path as a result of different launch angle. (I think that makes sense).
I remember doing that as well. Can't remember what I concluded though. A bunch of curves.
-
The dust really is the clincher. Pretty much any time you see the astronauts shuffling around you can see them kick plumes of dust that fly surprisingly far (indicating low gravity) and do not billow (proof of vacuum).
The footage is consistent with large-grained dust-free sand being kicked in atmospere. The speed of the dust can be explained by slow-motion.
MoonFaker - Project Sandbox
-
The footage is consistent with large-grained dust-free sand...
No such thing, in large aggregated quantities.
-
No such thing, in large aggregated quantities.
What do you think of the footage of Jarrah kicking up sand on the beach? The beach has a large quantitiy, doesn't it? It can also be sifted and washed.
We talked about this before.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251326
Everyone I ask says you're wrong and those geologists are right.
-
We talked about this before.
You've talked about this before HERE. It is hilarious that you seem to be trying to pretend you haven't been here before and been banned. Maybe you're not programmed to know that? Are you a real person?
-
No such thing, in large aggregated quantities.
What do you think of the footage of Jarrah kicking up sand on the beach? The beach has a large quantitiy, doesn't it? It can also be sifted and washed.
We talked about this before.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251326
Everyone I ask says you're wrong and those geologists are right.
Do you have anything NEW or are you satisfied with the old nonsense?
-
We talked about this before.
You do realize you just admitted to being the sock puppet of a banned poster.
Everyone I ask says you're wrong and those geologists are right.
Actually "those geologists" told you that your theory was crazy. You got one geologist to tell you you could wash and sift sand and then transport it in bulk without generating new dust, but he didn't say how. Nor did he explain where he managed to get such experience in the transportation of sifted, milled aggregates.
When I go to those threads I don't see the hales of agreement you claim.
-
What do you think of the footage of Jarrah kicking up sand on the beach?
I don't pay attention to Jarrah or watch his videos. Sand is easily distinguishable from the regolith that appears in the video.
-
You got one geologist to tell you you could wash and sift sand and then transport it in bulk without generating new dust, but he didn't say how
How about a dump truck? Are you saying that putting large-grained dust-free sand in a dump truck and transporting it and dumping it would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over?
I don't pay attention to Jarrah or watch his videos.
If you're going to be against something, you should know what it is.
Sand is easily distinguishable from the regolith that appears in the video.
How do you know what regolith looks like? Did you watch the Apollo footage? Lol.
-
How about a dump truck? Are you saying that putting large-grained dust-free sand in a dump truck and transporting it and dumping it would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over?
Yes.
If you're going to be against something, you should know what it is.
I don't consider him a serious claimant, and his personal obsession over me is not something I deign.
How do you know what regolith looks like? Did you watch the Apollo footage? Lol.
Yes, and that's my point. if you want to say that the stuff in the Grand Prix video was washed and sifted sand, such as on a beach, then you have to explain why the surface in the video clearly doesn't look like sand. We're back to the same nonsense you were arguing when you were banned. You're borrowing properties from various kinds of aggregate and pretending there's some single "magic sand" version that has only the properties you need and none of the properties that dispute your claim.
Yes, we're back to you making Magic Sand claims.
-
How do you know what regolith looks like? Did you watch the Apollo footage?
Yes, and that's my point.
You still haven't proven that the Apollo footage is real. If the missions were faked, you don't know what real regolith looks like.
This is like saying the levels of space radiation are low enough for humans not to need two meters of shielding because NASA's data say so. This is pretty basic.
-
How do you know what regolith looks like? Did you watch the Apollo footage?
Yes, and that's my point.
...
This is like saying the levels of space radiation are low enough for humans not to need two meters of shielding because NASA's data say so. This is pretty basic.
Prove this statement with some calculations. I provided you with data to calculate the amount of radiation received through the lesser dense portions of the VARB, but apparently you didn't do the calculations or the calculations don't fit your beliefs and are therefore to be ignored.
-
Prove this statement with some calculations. I provided you with data to calculate the amount of radiation received through the lesser dense portions of the VARB, but apparently you didn't do the calculations or the calculations don't fit your beliefs and are therefore to be ignored.
I'm getting so many responses that I'm missing stuff.
I can't do those kinds of calculations. I'm not putting forth the radiation info as proof. I'm putting it forward as a plausible reason for their having had to fake the missions.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1147.0
The proof is in the anomalies. People say that they had the technology to go but they're basing their opinions on the info that NASA has been feeding the public which should not simply be believed.
-
You still haven't proven that the Apollo footage is real. If the missions were faked, you don't know what real regolith looks like.
I don't have to prove the footage in question is real. You're telling me the footage in question was produced by a certain method. I'm pointing out that the footage in question doesn't exhibit behavior consistent with the method you say was used. It has nothing to do with authenticity.
-
I'm getting so many responses that I'm missing stuff.
Whine to someone else. You're quite familiar with this venue and its dynamics. You chose to post here, in defiance of a ban. Either deal with the forum as-is or go away.
I can't do those kinds of calculations.
Do you agree that they would be necessary in order to prove your point?
I'm not putting forth the radiation info as proof. I'm putting it forward as a plausible reason for their having had to fake the missions.
How would you know if it were plausible? You don't have the wherewithal to determine that.
...on the info that NASA has been feeding the public which should not simply be believed.
Why do you think it is "simply believed?" Are you unaware that billions of dollars worth of commerce worldwide requires that information to be accurate? Why do you think NASA could simply lie about various things having to do with space, and that no one would eventually notice?
-
Prove this statement with some calculations. I provided you with data to calculate the amount of radiation received through the lesser dense portions of the VARB, but apparently you didn't do the calculations or the calculations don't fit your beliefs and are therefore to be ignored.
I'm getting so many responses that I'm missing stuff.
I can't do those kinds of calculations. I'm not putting forth the radiation info as proof. I'm putting it forward as a plausible reason for their having had to fake the missions.
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1147.0
The proof is in the anomalies. People say that they had the technology to go but they're basing their opinions on the info that NASA has been feeding the public which should not simply be believed.
You didn't even look at them, High School stuff. You indicate you're not putting forth radiation info as proof, yet you state:
This is like saying the levels of space radiation are low enough for humans not to need two meters of shielding because NASA's data say so. This is pretty basic.
You are refuting yourself.
And if you can't handle all the comments, don't start so many threads or make posts to them. Cook in your own pot.
-
Why do you think it is "simply believed?" Are you unaware that billions of dollars worth of commerce worldwide requires that information to be accurate? Why do you think NASA could simply lie about various things having to do with space, and that no one would eventually notice?
This doesn't make the hoax proof go away.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487
There are plausible explanations. People who design satellites probably have high security clearances. They know better than to go public with the truth.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE
Do you agree that they would be necessary in order to prove your point?
We still have to know that the data on which we're basing the calculations isn't bogus. If it comes from NASA,it may be bogus. All I can do is read what Van Allen said and wonder about it. It's more or less a moot point anyway as the anomalies have already proven the hoax.
-
This doesn't make the hoax proof go away.
Yes it does. If you claim the public data are faulty, you must explain how successful use is made of them.
There are plausible explanations. People who design satellites probably have high security clearances.
"Probably?" You mean you don't actually know?
We still have to know that the data on which we're basing the calculations isn't bogus.
That's not what I asked. The question is about what method we should use to test your hypothesis regarding radiation or other engineering factors. You admit you are not conversant with the proper mathematics to do this. I'm asking whether that presumes the premise that a mathematical proof is necessary. You are filp-flopping. On the one hand you refer constantly to "common sense" in place of specialized knowledge, and here you seem to admit that these specialized techniques are proper.
All I can do is read what Van Allen said and wonder about it.
Are you qualified to know whether your sources accurately represented Dr. Van Allen? Are you aware that Dr. Van Allen explicitly repudiated the hoax theories?
It's more or less a moot point anyway as the anomalies have already proven the hoax.
No, it's not moot. You may fervently desire to pursue this discussion as if your belief was already proven, but it is not.
-
What do you think of the footage of Jarrah kicking up sand on the beach?
Is this the same Jarrah that tried to simulate Aldrin's bootprint in a cardboard box with a coarse regolith simulant that does not match the particle size distribution of lunar regolith.
-
This is like saying the levels of space radiation are low enough for humans not to need two meters of shielding because NASA's data say so.
Define low enough and explain why 2 m of shielding are required?
This is pretty basic.
Why is the radiation problem basic? Explain why it is basic.
-
You got one geologist to tell you you could wash and sift sand and then transport it in bulk without generating new dust, but he didn't say how
How about a dump truck? Are you saying that putting large-grained dust-free sand in a dump truck and transporting it and dumping it would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over?
I was the one who first posted that.
And I repeat what I also posted at the time; if you had a dump truck full of DIAMONDS, the process of being dumped would grind them and still create a cloud of dust.
You've been spamming the "dusty dump truck" for years, and I demand credit for it!
-
Even though it's apparently easy to produce magic dust free sand which holds impressions well, whatshisname has failed to produce even a small sample of it.
-
You got one geologist to tell you you could wash and sift sand and then transport it in bulk without generating new dust, but he didn't say how
How about a dump truck? Are you saying that putting large-grained dust-free sand in a dump truck and transporting it and dumping it would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over?
I was the one who first posted that.
And I repeat what I also posted at the time; if you had a dump truck full of DIAMONDS, the process of being dumped would grind them and still create a cloud of dust.
You've been spamming the "dusty dump truck" for years, and I demand credit for it!
So let it be written, so let it be done! :)
-
You got one geologist to tell you you could wash and sift sand and then transport it in bulk without generating new dust, but he didn't say how
How about a dump truck? Are you saying that putting large-grained dust-free sand in a dump truck and transporting it and dumping it would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over?
I was the one who first posted that.
And I repeat what I also posted at the time; if you had a dump truck full of DIAMONDS, the process of being dumped would grind them and still create a cloud of dust.
You've been spamming the "dusty dump truck" for years, and I demand credit for it!
So let it be written, so let it be done! :)
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/98915197/JREF/makeitso.gif)
Number One!!
-
As comprehensive debunks go, this post takes some beating -
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=443515&p=1065831407#post1065831407
Later in that thread -
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=443515&page=5&p=1065867045#post1065867045
Debating with this guy is the archetypal game of chess with pigeons ;D
-
As comprehensive debunks go, this post takes some beating -
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=443515&p=1065831407#post1065831407
Later in that thread -
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=443515&page=5&p=1065867045#post1065867045
Debating with this guy is the archetypal game of chess with pigeons ;D
Betamax101 clearly went beyond the moderators tolerance of language. If you were a member and can remember what were the general comments that were removed? I'm just trying to get a handle on the level of moderation, as I feel Betamax101 is a straightforward guy, whereas Scott isn't
-
Betamax101 clearly went beyond the moderators tolerance of language. If you were a member and can remember what were the general comments that were removed? I'm just trying to get a handle on the level of moderation, as I feel Betamax101 is a straightforward guy, whereas Scott isn't
It appears that he has been engaging with this Rocky/Cosmored/Scott character for quite some time and he is getting the same posts from him time and again. That would drive me nuts. I don't post there and have no plans to. As far as I am concerned, any forum that tolerates someone posting the same garbage as they have elsewhere hundreds of times, doesn't warrant consideration as a place for serious debate. Just that one post dismantled his whole argument, he just ignored it. It certainly isn't the first time and it appears there is nothing that you can say to him. You can't argue with that level of delusion and ignorance.