Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

The credo of the Apollo denier:

It is easy to 'win' the debate when you are unburdened by facts.

Originally posted by imnotbncre8ive

The clips that this "Aussie genius" repeatedly shows are of rockets in Earth's atmosphere. Conditions are quite different when the ambient air pressure is essentially zero. Suffice to say I am unconvinced by his "No Crater" argument.

So why were Scientists expecting to have a crater?

1966 NASA Langley Research Center footage of jet blast erosion effects on different surfaces. These tests were performed in Langley's 60-ft. vacuum sphere and 55-ft. vacuum cylinder and were part of an investigation to study the impact of the Lunar Lander's propulsion systems on the lunar surface.

In every instance I see a crater being made.

reply to post by FoosM


You still don't understand study, experimentation and the continued quest for knowledge and understanding??

What a pity.

Did you BOTHER to pay attention to the multiple examples, and the sizes of the (assumed) particles?

It was a demonstration of a variety of conditions that MIGHT have been encountered, for the actual landings.

Purely experimental, to gather DATA, and assess potential impacts.

I mean...this is BASIC SCIENCE!!!!!

AND.....each place that they landed, on the Moon, could have had different physical characteristics. There was little known, UNTIL we actualy got there!!!! (Compare to "landing" on a sandy beach, with no underlying hard strata....to "landing" in a bog, or in a grassy field, or a hard-packed dirt field, on Earth. Use your brain, please!)

The assumptions, based on the previous UNMANNED probes that investigated the Lunar surface were based on a VERY SMALL SAMPLE of regions.....there was no guarantee that EACH landing site would be consistent with previously examined sites.

ALL contingencies were experimented.

OH, and.....the "crater"....?

NONE of those examples exhibited a very solid substrate, beneath the "loose" particles, as part of the experiment. It was "scaled" (you do understand that, yes?) and thus, the depth of the "test area" was exaggerated.

I mean, this is just so obvious, to anyone with critical reasoning skills, and a bit of life experience.....

reply to post by FoosM


Expecting? Or testing to see what the probabilities were? Please provide a link to your citation, I'f like to check it out.

Edit to add: Never mind, it's the full caption on "Youtube," I'm tracking the research protocol for TN D 50-51 down now. I suspect it was not conducted in a vacuum, which would affect the spread of the exhaust anyway.


Edit to add: Found it. It was conducted in a vacuum chamber. Based on the scaling, we're looking at what would happen in the regolith was over a meter deep, composed of various materials. It is not that deep. The results are consistent with what was actually observed on the lunar surface.

reply to post by FoosM

by foosm

1966 NASA Langley Research Center footage of jet blast erosion effects on different surfaces. These tests were performed in Langley's 60-ft. vacuum sphere and 55-ft. vacuum cylinder and were part of an investigation to study the impact of the Lunar Lander's propulsion systems on the lunar surface.

It does not say this in that video at all!

Foosm where did you get that external source quote from and why didn't you include the credit for it?

Is this cut and past land? Where you get to snip out all the information that you think is relevant?


Where did your quote come from?

reply to post by theability


In fairness, the quotation is the caption on the actual YouTube page. FoosM can be selective with his citations, but in this case if you click on the link rather than the embed you will see where the citation comes from. Nevertheless, the video does not support his contention that the LM would have left a deep crater.

reply to post by DJW001


Actually the youtube page I see has no comments or citations at all.

This is the reason I brought it up, is because for me there isn't anything on that page, but a video, then empty disabled comments below.

Oh the silent movie of course.

Edited to add this screenshot

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a428c54342bb.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by theability


There is a toolbar beneath the video (below the play/pause bar) that has a double arrow pointing down. Click on that to expand the poster's comments.

reply to post by DJW001


Oh I see I have to search for the stuff right?

Now that isn't a source if you ask me!

Again having weed through Foosm claims, because he can't point you right to the science, because it doesn't support anything he says once again.

Shallow crater or deep crater, whatever.
There should have been evidence of a crater.

More studies:

NASA Langley Research Center 1961 footage of a preliminary investigation into the behavior of dust when subjected to powerful jet blasts. The tests were conducted at low ambient pressure.

Take a look how the dust flies up and away.
Dust and rocks should have damaged the LM.
At least ripped through the aluminum foil coating
and of course collected in the foot pads.

1) It was not aluminum foil
2) The very quote you used states 'low ambient pressure' and not 'vacuum'
3) It's in a container Foos, how can you not see that affects it?

:shk:

reply to post by FoosM


FoosM!!!!!

The video, in jus the first minutes, has captions that CLEARLY SAY "nozzle at FOUR inches"!!!!!

I mean....come on!!!

Research, research, research!!!!!!

(Hint: How long were the "Contact Light" probes that extended, from at least THREE of the LM's landing pads, at the end of the landing struts??? What were their function??? WHAT HAPPENED when they "contacted" the surface (by deflecting, on contact)???? I mean, IF YOU DO NOT KNOW THESE SIMPLE FACTS, then you have no business "trying" to "debate" on this topic!!!)

"Good night, Moon Hoax Believers, wherever you are......" (**)

**(Attributed to "PhilWebb59", of YouTube fame...).

reply to post by FoosM

Take a look how the dust flies up and away.

AWAY being the most important word. The lander cleared a circular ring of debris, clearly seen on the photographs taken by the lunar orbiter and JAXA.

reply to post by FoosM

Take a look how the dust flies up and away.
Dust and rocks should have damaged the LM.
At least ripped through the aluminum foil coating
and of course collected in the foot pads.

This has been answered in this thread many times Foosm but you know that and continue to ask the same questions over and over again like it never happened.

You know better. :shk:


The above quote shows once again that you do not understand how the debris should act in vacuum with 0.167g. The data has been presented time again, which you haven't regarded nor read or you wouldn't be posting this once again.

People that have degrees have debunked this White Noise work more than once!

I love the part that you suggest that rocks and pebbles on the moon should fly around in circles and damage the LM.

Classic representation of your vacuum model. Which is severely flawed in so many ways.

Here is another one




I have yet to see any demonstration or test that mimics what we see in the Apollo
record in regards to regolith displacement by the rocket exhaust.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Take a look how the dust flies up and away.

AWAY being the most important word. The lander cleared a circular ring of debris, clearly seen on the photographs taken by the lunar orbiter and JAXA.

Thats after the fact
We should have seen that with the Apollo photos.

reply to post by FoosM

I have yet to see any demonstration or test that mimics what we see in the Apollo
record in regards to regolith displacement by the rocket exhaust.

You continue to ignore the facts about your "videos".

They are not in hard vacuum! Stop posting misleading data knowingly. The you tube video clearly states that there is pressure during the test.

You plight is almost through Foosm, if you continue to have disregard for the Code of Ethics on ATS I'll request that this Jarrah White Noise Thread be closed and your [censored] soap box of fraud be removed.

Mislieading the forum over and over isn't flying anymore, either respond to questions, assert facts....

[Which you have proven may times over you are unable to do.]

Good luck with following the rules

reply to post by FoosM

Thats after the fact
We should have seen that with the Apollo photos.

Does this look enough like a crater for you?
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1eec5473ce10.jpg[/atsimg]
Courtesy of JAXA.

Clearly, the thin layer of regolith was displaced in a very large circular pattern. It would not necessarily be visible from the surface.

The International Space Station is a 5 Star Hotel compared to the tin can the astronauts rode in the Apollo missions. The biggest piece of evidence man never went to the moon is the fact we don't click on a tiny booster to the ISS and send it on a nice vacation cruise to the moon and back.

Why are the Japanese Kaguya (selene) satellite pictures of the moon you access on their website all look like they were snapped with a $50 digital camera? Poor quality, inability to see anything. I could take better photo's of the moon with a $2500 Meade telescope. I have a feeling the United States is forcing them to only publicize "thumbnail" photo's so we can't see the truth.Which is another nail in the coffin proving man's never been there.

India hasn't released their photo's yet and have had 'trouble' with people trying to break into their facility. I wonder how much we will have to pay them to keep quiet if our agents can't destroy their evidence proving our hoax?

reply to post by Pervius

The biggest piece of evidence man never went to the moon is the fact we don't click on a tiny booster to the ISS and send it on a nice vacation cruise to the moon and back.

You do realize that the ISS is massive compared to the Apollo rig. How is this at all relevant, anyway?

Why are the Japanese Kaguya (selene) satellite pictures of the moon you access on their website all look like they were snapped with a $50 digital camera? Poor quality, inability to see anything. I could take better photo's of the moon with a $2500 Meade telescope.

Because their imaging system is basically similar to that in a $50 digital camera. More pixels and such, but digital images tend to look like digital images, especially when you magnify them. Does your Meade telescope really allow you to resolve objects mere tens of meters wide?