Author Topic: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith  (Read 14639 times)

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3236
    • Clavius
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #90 on: April 03, 2019, 04:49:38 PM »
Fair enough. If the pre Apollo surface photos are real, my concerns are surely diminished.

This is carefully worded to say nothing to advance the discussion.  Your line of reasoning in this thread was based on expectations whose premises have been thoroughly answered by your critics and variously conceded by you.  If you have no better argument, do you agree that your conclusion of fakery has been refuted?  A simple answer works fine.

Quote
As far as changing the subject. Guilty. But it is not intentional. It’s just my nature to go off on tangents, no different than many of you. But nobody calls out those posts because they are coming from people  on the ‘winning’ team.

Yet another attempt at social engineering, and I don't believe today's attempted digression was unintentional.  Would it be possible for you to go at least one day without bellyaching about how allegedly shabbily you're being treated?
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline jr Knowing

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 127
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #91 on: April 03, 2019, 04:55:53 PM »
Hi Onebigmonkey,

Von Braun choose an apt bible verse for his tombstone? Then surely you don’t know the Bible well. The term “firmament” I believe is only mentioned 14 times in the entire Bible. It’s means a protective dome over earth that is impenetrable. The verse he choose out of the entire Bible states the firmament did its job. How is this remotely apt for a man who supposedly spearheaded a manned journey through this supposed dome? It makes absolutely zero sense.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3236
    • Clavius
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #92 on: April 03, 2019, 04:58:28 PM »
It makes absolutely zero sense.

Are you changing the subject or not?  If you're not, don't.  If you are, put all this new nonsense in a different thread so that we can keep you focused on the specific claims you've made in this one.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1411
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #93 on: April 04, 2019, 12:46:13 AM »
Hi Onebigmonkey,

Von Braun choose an apt bible verse for his tombstone? Then surely you don’t know the Bible well. The term “firmament” I believe is only mentioned 14 times in the entire Bible. It’s means a protective dome over earth that is impenetrable. The verse he choose out of the entire Bible states the firmament did its job. How is this remotely apt for a man who supposedly spearheaded a manned journey through this supposed dome? It makes absolutely zero sense.

Your picking one word and deciding that is the significant one makes no sense, as does putting words in his mouth. Read the entire epitaph, think about why it might have been chosen by a rocket scientist.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3236
    • Clavius
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #94 on: April 04, 2019, 11:32:10 AM »
Ignoring the latest diversion, let's try to see where we stand in this thread.

First, I don't think Jr Knowing understands what "regolith" means.  It's not just the dust and pea gravel.  Regolith, in lunar geology terms, is anything but bedrock.  It is granular material up to and including rocks of substantial mass.  It makes no sense to try to differentiate regolith from rocks.  Rocks are part of the regolith.  That some are only partially submerged is immaterial.  While the variance in diameter generally favors smaller particles nearer the surface, this is not a reason to distinguish among dust, grains, pebbles, and stones.

The aesthetic argument seems mostly put to rest.  Jr Knowing has conceded that pre-Apollo photographs of the lunar surface are consistent with Apollo photography, and that all of that is markedly distinct from the prevailing artistic impression.  He has raised the question of whether pre-Apollo photographs are authentic, but it is unclear whether he is advancing a hypothesis that they are fake.  If so, he has provided no evidence to support such an affirmation.

Jr Knowing has claimed the regolith is of uniform depth and insinuates that this is suspicious.  He seems to have drawn this conclusion merely on a casual observation of photographs.  He has provided no further elucidation of method, nor a response to other data indicating the regolith is many meters deep -- not the mere centimeters he insinuates -- and that the depth varies greatly.  It is likely this line of reasoning suffers from the aforementioned misconception of what regolith is.  In any case, this point remains open.  His claim has been rebutted and he has not rejoined it.

The argument based on the incorrect premise of dust particles behaving as an aerosol seems to have been abandoned.  Jr Knowing has conceded his erroneous concept of projectile velocity, and seems to have accepted the rebuttal from ballistics showing why dust will gather preferentially around the base of protruding rocks.

Gillianren's astute comments went entirely unaddressed.  Jr Knowing quoted her, but then launched into an irrelevant, unsubstantiated diatribe filled with baseless accusations.  Her rebuttal of his proposal presently stands without substantial rejoinder.  [ETA This is a point she brought up in the lunar module thread, not this thread.  I inadvertently included it in this summary.]

What is wanted here, then, seems to be:
  • A concession that the pre-Apollo photographs of the lunar surface are authentic and consistent with Apollo photography, or in the alternative, an argument why they should not be accepted as evidence to that effect.
  • Substantiation of the claim that the regolith depicted in the photograh is both thin and uniform, and a line of reasoning connecting this to some desired point; or in the alternative, a disavowal that the claim is probative of anything touching authenticity of the Apollo missions.
  • A reconciliation of the implicit contradictions in his argument, specifically that what he is claiming was attempted as a clever deception is also claimed to be blatantly obvious.

Jr Knowing:  do you intend to continue the debate on these points, or shall we consider it an argument you've resigned from?
« Last Edit: April 04, 2019, 11:58:08 AM by JayUtah »
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Von_Smith

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 74
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #95 on: April 04, 2019, 11:50:43 AM »
Hi Onebigmonkey,

Von Braun choose an apt bible verse for his tombstone? Then surely you don’t know the Bible well. The term “firmament” I believe is only mentioned 14 times in the entire Bible. It’s means a protective dome over earth that is impenetrable. The verse he choose out of the entire Bible states the firmament did its job. How is this remotely apt for a man who supposedly spearheaded a manned journey through this supposed dome? It makes absolutely zero sense.

Lots of people today just use "firmament" as a synonym for "skies" or "heavens".  They tend not to care that the ancient Hebrews thought of it as a solid dome.  Much like people use the terms "sanguine" and "melancholy" without giving any thought to the theory of the four humors.  Werner von Braun was probably one of those people.


Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2918
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #96 on: April 04, 2019, 12:09:00 PM »
Ignoring the latest diversion, let's try to see where we stand in this thread.

First, I don't think Jr Knowing understands what "regolith" means.  It's not just the dust and pea gravel.  Regolith, in lunar geology terms, is anything but bedrock.  It is granular material up to and including rocks of substantial mass.  It makes no sense to try to differentiate regolith from rocks.  Rocks are part of the regolith.  That some are only partially submerged is immaterial.  While the variance in diameter generally favors smaller particles nearer the surface, this is not a reason to distinguish among dust, grains, pebbles, and stones.

The aesthetic argument seems mostly put to rest.  Jr Knowing has conceded that pre-Apollo photographs of the lunar surface are consistent with Apollo photography, and that all of that is markedly distinct from the prevailing artistic impression.  He has raised the question of whether pre-Apollo photographs are authentic, but it is unclear whether he is advancing a hypothesis that they are fake.  If so, he has provided no evidence to support such an affirmation.

Jr Knowing has claimed the regolith is of uniform depth and insinuates that this is suspicious.  He seems to have drawn this conclusion merely on a casual observation of photographs.  He has provided no further elucidation of method, nor a response to other data indicating the regolith is many meters deep -- not the mere centimeters he insinuates -- and that the depth varies greatly.  It is likely this line of reasoning suffers from the aforementioned misconception of what regolith is.  In any case, this point remains open.  His claim has been rebutted and he has not rejoined it.

The argument based on the incorrect premise of dust particles behaving as an aerosol seems to have been abandoned.  Jr Knowing has conceded his erroneous concept of projectile velocity, and seems to have accepted the rebuttal from ballistics showing why dust will gather preferentially around the base of protruding rocks.

Gillianren's astute comments went entirely unaddressed.  Jr Knowing quoted her, but then launched into an irrelevant, unsubstantiated diatribe filled with baseless accusations.  Her rebuttal of his proposal presently stands without substantial rejoinder.  [ETA This is a point she brought up in the lunar module thread, not this thread.  I inadvertently included it in this summary.]

What is wanted here, then, seems to be:
  • A concession that the pre-Apollo photographs of the lunar surface are authentic and consistent with Apollo photography, or in the alternative, an argument why they should not be accepted as evidence to that effect.
  • Substantiation of the claim that the regolith depicted in the photograh is both thin and uniform, and a line of reasoning connecting this to some desired point; or in the alternative, a disavowal that the claim is probative of anything touching authenticity of the Apollo missions.
  • A reconciliation of the implicit contradictions in his argument, specifically that what he is claiming was attempted as a clever deception is also claimed to be blatantly obvious.

Jr Knowing:  do you intend to continue the debate on these points, or shall we consider it an argument you've resigned from?

From https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_stratigraphy/chapter_6.pdf  from table 6.1 the "soil" varies from 12.2 m(A16)--3.7 m(A12)
Also Page 3
Quote
Soil accumulation is a self-damping process such that the average accumulation rate decreases with time (Lindsay, 1972, 1975; Quaide and Oberbeck, 1975).
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline jr Knowing

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 127
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #97 on: April 04, 2019, 12:35:23 PM »
Hi Onebigmonkey,

Von Braun choose an apt bible verse for his tombstone? Then surely you don’t know the Bible well. The term “firmament” I believe is only mentioned 14 times in the entire Bible. It’s means a protective dome over earth that is impenetrable. The verse he choose out of the entire Bible states the firmament did its job. How is this remotely apt for a man who supposedly spearheaded a manned journey through this supposed dome? It makes absolutely zero sense.

Lots of people today just use "firmament" as a synonym for "skies" or "heavens".  They tend not to care that the ancient Hebrews thought of it as a solid dome.  Much like people use the terms "sanguine" and "melancholy" without giving any thought to the theory of the four humors.  Werner von Braun was probably one of those people.

Hi Von Smith,

Fair enough but the quote says the firmament showed its handy work. What handy work would that be then? Surely somebody putting this on their own gravestone would consider the implications and meaning of the phrase. This is a man who died 6 or 7 years after he sent man to the moon and these are thoughts he found the most important to convey to others on his tombstone. It's mind boggling. It is akin to Bin Laden converting to Catholicism on his death bed. Von Braun's epitaph says the firmament did its job. Full stop. And then fast forward 15 years, and Armstrong is babbling about "removing one of truth's protective layers". By this time, Armstrong is well aware some are doubting the missions yet he muddy's the waters even more with his cryptic thoughts that go unexplained. None of this makes a lot of sense.

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2918
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #98 on: April 04, 2019, 12:50:35 PM »
...
Hi Von Smith,

Fair enough but the quote says the firmament showed its handy work. What handy work would that be then? Surely somebody putting this on their own gravestone would consider the implications and meaning of the phrase. This is a man who died 6 or 7 years after he sent man to the moon and these are thoughts he found the most important to convey to others on his tombstone. It's mind boggling. It is akin to Bin Laden converting to Catholicism on his death bed. Von Braun's epitaph says the firmament did its job. Full stop. And then fast forward 15 years, and Armstrong is babbling about "removing one of truth's protective layers". By this time, Armstrong is well aware some are doubting the missions yet he muddy's the waters even more with his cryptic thoughts that go unexplained.
While Neil may been aware that some are doubting, he made the voyage in real life, not some fantasy land belief.
Quote


 None of this makes a lot of sense.

Of course it made sense, IF one takes into context what he was speaking and leave the Hoax BS aside.
Neil was a very good pilot and astronaut.  Look at his escape after a failed simulator(that all the astronauts flew) and the disastrous Gemini 8 stuck thruster, proves.  Whether he choose later comments to appease the HB crowd MIGHT be debatable, to me the speech had the air of people finding new avenues of science and uncovering truths that lie within.  Of course I am not a HB.  :)
Your comment leads me to associate you with the other misinformed HB's.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3236
    • Clavius
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #99 on: April 04, 2019, 01:03:58 PM »
Okay, I guess we're finished talking about regolith and its appearance in photos.  Since Jr Knowing doesn't want to rehabilitate any of his failed arguments along those lines, his accusation of faking those photographs fails forthwith.

Surely somebody putting this on their own gravestone would consider the implications and meaning of the phrase.

People have been interpreting verses of scripture differently and applying different significance and degrees of literalism to them for thousands of years with no one "correct" meaning having emerged.  There is absolutely no reason to suppose that what you infer from a scripture must be what von Braun or anyone else infers from it.  This is probably the silliest argument you've put forward in this forum.  If you want to argue that there is something suspicious about von Braun's headstone referring to Ps 19:1, then you bear the burden to show (not merely suggest) that he or his family has the same interpretation of that verse as you do.  Anything less boils down to begging the question.

Quote
By this time, Armstrong is well aware some are doubting the missions yet he muddy's the waters even more with his cryptic thoughts that go unexplained.

It was explained as a metaphor.

Quote
None of this makes a lot of sense.

No, you're just grasping at some pretty comically farfetched straws and begging some pretty farfetched questions in order to create a handwavy appearance of impropriety.  For someone who claims he is "99% sure" the missions were real, and who has pleaded with his critics that he only wants a friendly discourse, this is some pretty desperate argumentation.  You must have some inkling of how absurd it sounds and how utterly unconvincing it is.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1533
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #100 on: April 04, 2019, 01:32:01 PM »
Fair enough but the quote says the firmament showed its handy work. What handy work would that be then?

[snip]

Von Braun's epitaph says the firmament did its job. Full stop.

Actually it says nothing of the kind. Have you actually looked at a picture of it or just spewed forth some other crap from another conspiracy site? Von Braun's epitaph says only 'Psalms 19.1'. That is all. This is it. You are claiming an interpretation based on a whole other layer of interpretation.

Frankly it was bad enough when you tried arguing technical details. This is just absurdity elevated to a high art.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2019, 01:35:00 PM by Jason Thompson »
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Mag40

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 255
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #101 on: April 04, 2019, 01:43:23 PM »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalm_19#Verses_1–6:_The_glory_of_God

1.The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/firmament/

I declare this officially as the most obtuse argument I have ever seen. This gentleman could have put "Yeah - we faked it" on his grave, or issued a deathbed confession, but no. He decided to use biblical flat earth code that only bizarrely connected hoax believers can see.

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1533
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #102 on: April 04, 2019, 01:47:25 PM »
Try this link here. It shows the many many translations of that verse of the Bible that have been published, many of which do not even use the word 'firmament'. So go on, jr, tell us exacty which version von Braun was referring to or admit your entire argument was based on literally nothing.

https://biblehub.com/psalms/19-1.htm?fbclid=IwAR1-sFNOcWM5FOtTjh9J_u6GLp3-SAyKAKxtG9LvN0MubltqpWapJADZh_Y
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3236
    • Clavius
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #103 on: April 04, 2019, 01:51:16 PM »
The entire verse is just referring to the glory of God and the work he did creating everything. That's my interpretation. Why is that any less valid than yours?

Wernher von Braun felt guilty for all the Jews who died building his V-2 rocket.  Hence he chose a verse from Hebrew scripture as a secret apology to the Jewish race.  Or, he was referring to the stirring setting of that verse in Hadyn's Creation, secretly reaffirming that all Germanic peoples should remain in solidarity regardless of what wars were lost.  See, I can make up speculative crap too.  Why are my interpretations any less justifiable?

Quote
For someone claiming to be just asking questions you are determined to read a lot of crap into insignificant details.

Indeed.  These are patently absurd arguments -- arguments of sheer desperation.  I can't imagine someone who purports to want a serious discussion actually deploying these arguments to pursue one.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1533
Re: Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith
« Reply #104 on: April 04, 2019, 02:46:07 PM »
The entire verse is just referring to the glory of God and the work he did creating everything. That's my interpretation. Why is that any less valid than yours?

Wernher von Braun felt guilty for all the Jews who died building his V-2 rocket.  Hence he chose a verse from Hebrew scripture as a secret apology to the Jewish race.  Or, he was referring to the stirring setting of that verse in Hadyn's Creation, secretly reaffirming that all Germanic peoples should remain in solidarity regardless of what wars were lost.  See, I can make up speculative crap too.  Why are my interpretations any less justifiable?

Quote
For someone claiming to be just asking questions you are determined to read a lot of crap into insignificant details.

Indeed.  These are patently absurd arguments -- arguments of sheer desperation.  I can't imagine someone who purports to want a serious discussion actually deploying these arguments to pursue one.

Looks like you got to my post in the literally two minutes between my putting it up and re-thinking it, so I removed a lot of what you quoted. Sorry. Still, reasonable points made.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain