you can't deny everything.The proof is in the dust

[bknight]

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

[godscountry]

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.

[Glom]

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.

[Scott]

  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

[JayUtah]

The footage is consistent with large-grained dust-free sand...

No such thing, in large aggregated quantities.

[Scott]

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.

[frenat]

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?

[Allan F]

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?

[JayUtah]

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.

[JayUtah]

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.

[Scott]

  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.

[JayUtah]

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.

[Scott]

   

  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.

[bknight]

   

  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.

[Scott]

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.