I may have new evidence to prove we never went to the Moon

reply to post by TeslaandLyne


Not to me I'm a firm believer that we went.
Nothing or nobody here at ATS will ever change my mind on that.

reply to post by Deaf Alien


Hi, from numerous posts:

Actually, NASA was out of ideas on how to do the landing and return until late 1961 when an engineer named John Houbolt came up with the idea of a LO-Rendezvous plan using a lander. Many said it was too complex to implement.


His plan seemed to work and they're planning on doing something similar, if you go by Buzz Aldrin's idea of a continuous transport program between Earth and Mars. (or more precisely, the Moon and Mars).

I go either way on Moon and Space travel cause everyone I know thinks
we went to the Moon but on the net reality suffers and arguments go on.

But I recall those Rendezvous maneuvers being quite spectacular.
And nicely duplicated for the space station now days.
That is a holdover from the Moon Landings.

The Buzz Aldrin plan seems a callback to the dreamers of the time.
I wonder how the Star Wars or Star Trek expert would feel if
they realized that space travel was an impossibility.

Some how the dream lives on and perhaps always will.

Originally posted by Intothepitwego
So ours were better placed. Nothing about that answer proves humans placed anything.

So there being a significant difference in both success rate and effectiveness between robotically placed reflectors and human placed doesn't prove there's a difference? Right...

In fact, had humans been the ones up there aligning things, chances are pretty good that they would be less effective.

Prove it. To me, I'd trust the human eye over an engineer's guess. Had it not been for human intervention, Apollo 11 would have crashed.

Read a few posts back to see why I might have that expectation. See the post where it is pointed out that we have so much continuous rover footage that there is no way it could be filmed on a stage.

Well in the short clip of 16mm film that does exist it drives too far for it to be a soundstage, yes, but i don't know too many soundstages that go for kilometers in distance. Furthermore, the restraint that it had to be a vacuum makes the size limit for a would-be soundstage even smaller.

It takes longer than 3 minutes to get across many stages, especially if you slow the footage down. Do not attack me for asking someone to back up what they claimed.

I don't know of many stages that can hold a vacuum, do you? And the footage is not slowed down. This is particularly apparent in the 16mm clip I mentioned.

I am referring directly to the picture you used as a flip anim to prove your point.

I didn't use a flip animation, I used a cross-eye stereogram back on page 2. Thanks for proving my point, you're ignoring my image.

If that is not the image you wanted to prove your point with, you should not have used it for that then should you have?

I didn't. The image I posted on page 2 ages ago was not a flip animation. Perhaps you should read the thread before replying, it's not that long.

Originally posted by ngchunter

Well in the short clip of 16mm film that does exist it drives too far for it to be a soundstage, yes, but i don't know too many soundstages that go for kilometers in distance. Furthermore, the restraint that it had to be a vacuum makes the size limit for a would-be soundstage even smaller.

Your grammar is sloppy and hard to follow so we can do this one point at a time to make it easier. Please re-read what you wrote here and see if it makes sense to you. There is no footage of any rover travelling too far for too long to be on a soudstage. If so, please tell me where to find it. Secondly, you assume it is in a vacuum because you clearly did not really give the kickup much of a serious look. Map out the tradjectory of the dust and you will see that it does not travel in perfet arcs radiating from varying points on the wheels. The dust interacts with an atmosphere and quite obviously. It changes acceleration as it reaches its peak velocity. This has been used all over the web to try and prove NASA is hiding a secret atmosphere on the moon. So many people can see how obvious it is that the rooster tail kickup has been used to prove all kinds of theories involving an atmosphere and so far just one theory that it proves they were on our vacuum moon.

Originally posted by Intothepitwego...Secondly, you assume it is in a vacuum because you clearly did not really give the kickup much of a serious look. Map out the tradjectory of the dust and you will see that it does not travel in perfet arcs radiating from varying points on the wheels. The dust interacts with an atmosphere and quite obviously. It changes acceleration as it reaches its peak velocity. This has been used all over the web to try and prove NASA is hiding a secret atmosphere on the moon. So many people can see how obvious it is that the rooster tail kickup has been used to prove all kinds of theories involving an atmosphere and so far just one theory that it proves they were on our vacuum moon.

The dust doesn't change accelerartion, but it certainly does change its velocity along its "rooster tail" path -- and that is due to its balistic trajectory.

A ballistic trajectory will occur whether there is a vacuum or not; all that is needed is gravity -- and the Moon has gravity, albeit 6 times less than Earth's.

An object -- such as a moondust particle -- will follow a ballistic trajectory, along which the dust will "slow down" as it reaches the apex of the ballistic path, and will "speed up" after reaching that apex and begins to get pulled back down by gravity -- just like on Earth, only more slowly on the "down" side of that trajectory becuase of the lower acceleration due to gravity on the Moon.

I've seen the video of the "rooster tail" and I don't see any atmospheric disturbance of the dust, only a textbook ballistic path -- although one that is slower due to the Moon's lower acceleration due to gravity, just like expected. But also -- just as expected -- the dust speeds up as it is being pulled down by the Moon's gravity.

[edit on 1/17/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by Intothepitwego
There is no footage of any rover travelling too far for too long to be on a soudstage. If so, please tell me where to find it.

upload.wikimedia.org...
This single shot is more than a minute long, too long to be on a soundstage, particularly a "vacuum stage."

Secondly, you assume it is in a vacuum because you clearly did not really give the kickup much of a serious look. Map out the tradjectory of the dust and you will see that it does not travel in perfet arcs radiating from varying points on the wheels.

Yes, it does, hence the classic "rooster tail" appearance instead of a billowing cloud. Dust particles kicked up less by the wheel reach a lower peak, particles kicked more reach a higher peak, the sum of all particles creates a "wave" of arcing dust which immediately returns to the lunar surface without billowing.

The dust interacts with an atmosphere and quite obviously.

LOL, it billows? Really? No, it doesn't. Dust billows in an atmosphere, this dust does not billow. It arcs.

It changes acceleration as it reaches its peak velocity.

No, it changes velocity as it reaches its peak because that's how gravity works... The acceleration doesn't change. The biggest sprays do thin out as the particles' trajectories are divergent, but none of their accelerations change, only their velocities.

This has been used all over the web to try and prove NASA is hiding a secret atmosphere on the moon. So many people can see how obvious it is that the rooster tail kickup has been used to prove all kinds of theories

So the opinion of someone who think's there's an atmosphere on the moon is "evidence" of a hoax? Yeah, that sounds like it came from an unbiased and well-educated person lol. Talk about confirmation bias.

I notice you still haven't addressed the fact that you ignored my image and misattributed the flip image to me. I guess you won't admit that mistake.

Originally posted by ngchunter

Yes, it does, hence the classic "rooster tail" appearance instead of a billowing cloud...............

Sorry bub but you better stop there. I stopped reading so as to not catch anything stupid. Rooster tail is the term used for the shape of the debris cloud spun off as it interacts with the surrounding atmosphere and diffuses with it. This is what causes it to give that "classic rooster tail" effect. You are not even really trying here.

Originally posted by Intothepitwego

Originally posted by ngchunter

Yes, it does, hence the classic "rooster tail" appearance instead of a billowing cloud...............

Sorry bub but you better stop there. I stopped reading so as to not catch anything stupid. Rooster tail is the term used for the shape of the debris cloud spun off as it interacts with the surrounding atmosphere and diffuses with it. This is what causes it to give that "classic rooster tail" effect. You are not even really trying here.

We may be talking semantics here -- but there is no atmosphere required to get the "roostertail" that you are describing.

A group of particles could start off with a generally similar ballitstic path on the way "up"; however along that trajectory and on the way "down" those paths could diverge into individual particles -- since as the particles travel along that path for a greater period of time, the greater the difference in those paths will be able to be noticed.

If I throw a handful of dust up in a vacuum, the handfull will start off all together, but each particle will take its own trajectory and the handful will begin to disperse -- but that dispersion will have nothing to do with the interaction of an atmosphere.

[edit on 1/17/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
We may be talking semantics here -- but there is no atmosphere required to get a "roostertail".

A group of particles could start off with a generally similar ballitstic path on the way "up"; however along that trajectory and on the way "down" those paths could diverge into individual particles -- since as the particles travel along that path for a greater period of time, the greater the difference in those paths will be able to be noticed.

This does not make a rooster tail appearance. If you do not believe me, find us some footage of something kicking up dust in a vacuum and you will see the clear difference. Unfortunately, we do not have any footage like that. You can also simply plug it into a particle generator and adjust things like atmosphere density from 1 to 0 and change gravity all you like. Guess what happens in every atmosphere level except for 0 - that is right, a rooster tail.

Perhaps people here do not know what a rooster tail is.

If I throw a handful of dust up in a vacuum, the handfull will start off all together, but each particle will take its own trajectory and will begin to disperse -- but that dispersion will have nothing to do with the interaction of an atmosphere.

No, they will not take their own tradjectory once thrown in the air, they will stay on the same path they left your hand at. Each one will have its own path but in no atmosphere, those paths will not change. I am not sure what type of physics lessons you have been taking but I would love to get in touch with your teachers.

[edit on 17-1-2009 by Intothepitwego]

Originally posted by Intothepitwego
Sorry bub but you better stop there. I stopped reading so as to not catch anything stupid. Rooster tail is the term used for the shape of the debris cloud spun off as it interacts with the surrounding atmosphere and diffuses with it. This is what causes it to give that "classic rooster tail" effect. You are not even really trying here.

Mencing words, is that the best you can do? Where's the diffuse cloud? Where is it? It's not there! No cloud, no billowing dust, no atmosphere. And now not only are you ignoring the image I posted on page 2, you're ignoring any statements about said image. Just can't admit it, can you?

Originally posted by IntothepitwegoNo, they will not take their own tradjectory once thrown in the air, they will stay on the same path they left your hand at. Each one will have its own path but in no atmosphere, those paths will not change. I am not sure what type of physics lessons you have been taking but I would love to get in touch with your teachers.

You're right -- the path of each particle will not change. (...and, by the way, I never said the individual dust particle paths would change -- you made that part up)

HOWEVER, the very small differences that are bound to exist in the ORIGINAL trajectory of each particle would be magnified by the length of time those particles are in the "air" (for lack of a better term).

THEREFORE, the original "clump" of dust will no longer be a clump after it goes up, then back down again. The clump will begin to disperse, because the original trajectories of each individual dust grain were slightly different than each other -- imperceptably different at first, but the difference becomes perceptable as time moves forward.

[edit on 1/17/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by ngchunter

Mencing words, is that the best you can do? Where's the diffuse cloud? Where is it? It's not there! No cloud, no billowing dust, no atmosphere. And now not only are you ignoring the image I posted on page 2, you're ignoring any statements about said image. Just can't admit it, can you?

You mean "Mincing" words? That is not at all what I am doing. I am pointing out that a "rooster tail" is the name given to the effect of a dust cloud interacting with the surrounding atmosphere. That is what that is. If you do not like words being defined as they are, take that up with Webster, not me.

Bilowing? I never said there was any billowing. I never claimed it was windy.

Why would I look at an image when there is rover footage all over the net to look at. How will a still photo show me any more clearly how something is moving than moving footage of it will? Yes, I am ignoring everything you say right after you stepped in here to start saying ignorant things and then blame the words for their meaning when you are wrong.

I highly suggest that if you are trying to prove some point about how the rover kicks up dust, a still photo might not be the best bet.

Originally posted by Intothepitwego
Each one will have its own path

Causing the particles to diverge. Thank you.
www.youtube.com...
Looks like the same "rooster tail" to me. Furthermore, it clearly demonstrates the exact same particle divergence. If you had a rough terrain instead of a flat terrain with rocks and other bumpy things causing an uneven source of particles you'd have the apollo footage perfectly.

Originally posted by Intothepitwego
...Bilowing? I never said there was any billowing. I never claimed it was windy...

How can there be no bollowing if there is an atmosphere? Fine dust will billow in Earth's atmosphere whether it is windy or not. The only way to get no billowing is in a vacuum.

Throw some talcum powder up in your (non-windy) bathroom. Much of it will disperse into a cloud and hang there in the atmosphere much longer than it would in a vacuum. In a vacuum the talcum powder particles would go up, then down -- without hanging there (or "billowing")...although they will diverge (what I called rooster tail) from one another as each particle takes its own unique path.


[edit on 1/17/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by Intothepitwego
Bilowing? I never said there was any billowing. I never claimed it was windy.

Of course not, you overlook the fact that it doesn't take wind to cause billowing. The presence of an atmosphere will always cause it, even indoors. Besides, don't you realize that spinning wheels in dirt will cause turbulence in the air behind it?

Why would I look at an image when there is rover footage all over the net to look at. How will a still photo show me any more clearly how something is moving than moving footage of it will?

The photo I posted, and what we discussing when you accused me of using a different photo, had nothing to do with the rover or dust but had to do with the mountains in the background. I'm guessing you are now ignoring that issue entirely because you know it proves apollo must have been real.

Originally posted by ngchunter

Of course not, you overlook the fact that it doesn't take wind to cause billowing. The presence of an atmosphere will always cause it, even indoors. Besides, don't you realize that spinning wheels in dirt will cause turbulence in the air behind it?

LOLOLOLOLOL

Really? Are you even reading what you write? So you are trying to prove there is no atmosphere and as part of that you indicate that the turning tires turbulate the air behind them? What air? I thought your point was that there is no air? Thank you for admitting that you can clearly see an atmosphere in the rooster tails as well. It was nice convincing you.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

You're right -- the path of each particle will not change. (...and, by the way, I never said the individual dust particle paths would change -- you made that part up)

I made nothing up, that is what I got from what you wrote. Try your own words if you are looking for the source of that little problem. Model it. Show me. Prove to me that it will also cause a very atmosphere causing rooster tail to drive in no atmosphere. Have you run a simulation? Have you done your own experiments? Has anyone? Where are they? Put up or shut up as they say. Neither one of you has been able to keep up the English speaking part of this argument very well so I am not sure why I am wasting time.

Each particle will stay on its original path which will cause the trail to forever spread out but also to fall in perfect arcs that caus a criss-cross effect on the falling side of the plume. We see nothing like this in the footage given to us. The footage, that is never once too long for a soundstage, unless you have no idea how big soundstages are, shows us exactly what we see happen on earth when driving over fine dust.

Originally posted by Intothepitwego

Originally posted by ngchunter

Of course not, you overlook the fact that it doesn't take wind to cause billowing. The presence of an atmosphere will always cause it, even indoors. Besides, don't you realize that spinning wheels in dirt will cause turbulence in the air behind it?

LOLOLOLOLOL

Really? Are you even reading what you write? So you are trying to prove there is no atmosphere and as part of that you indicate that the turning tires turbulate the air behind them?

What air? I thought your point was that there is no air? Thank you for admitting that you can clearly see an atmosphere in the rooster tails as well. It was nice convincing you.

Umm...maybe you should read it more closely -- keeping in mind the context of your argument...

(ngchunter -- correct me if I'm wrong), but I think ngchunter was pointing out that if YOU are arguing that this was filmed in a studio on Earth, the the spinning tires WOULD IN FACT create wind turbulance -- which was not observed in the video.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Umm...maybe you should read it more closely -- keeping in mind the context of your argument...

(ngchunter -- correct me if I'm wrong), but I think ngchunter was pointing out that if YOU are arguing that this was filmed in a studio on Earth, the the spinning tires WOULD IN FACT create wind turbulance -- which was not observed in the video.

That would be just as stupid. That would mean that any footage of sand buggies or any other vehicle common to rome over dust kickup materials would all have this turbulence effect that is noticable on earth but not in the rover footage...care to offer an example....?

[edit on 17-1-2009 by Intothepitwego]

Originally posted by Intothepitwego
I made nothing up, that is what I got from what you wrote. Try your own words if you are looking for the source of that little problem. Model it. Show me. Prove to me that it will also cause a very atmosphere causing rooster tail to drive in no atmosphere. Have you run a simulation? Have you done your own experiments? Has anyone? Where are they? Put up or shut up as they say. Neither one of you has been able to keep up the English speaking part of this argument very well so I am not sure why I am wasting time.

Each particle will stay on its original path which will cause the trail to forever spread out but also to fall in perfect arcs that caus a criss-cross effect on the falling side of the plume. We see nothing like this in the footage given to us. The footage, that is never once too long for a soundstage, unless you have no idea how big soundstages are, shows us exactly what we see happen on earth when driving over fine dust.

I can model it in my head with a thought experiment:

Take a handful of rocks on a calm day and throw them in the air. The weight of the rocks will help negate the effect ofthe atmoshphere (for the most part). Those rocks will have the same starting point (your hand) but they will all fall in different locations. This would be due to the differences in the initial velocity of each rock.

Now imagine being able to fit 5000 rocks in your hand. when you throw them up, they will all start aff with in the same location, but will soon disperse into a shower of stones.

The reason I say the dust in the video doesn't move like it would on Earth is because there is no dust suspended in the atmosphere -- because there is no atmosphere in that video. Just like the 5000 stones thrown into the air in my thought experiment, the dust simply disperses and moves in an arc (and of couse gets jostled around due to impacting other dust particles.)