Moon Rocks and the Absence of Regolith

[mako88sb]

]
The problem lies not with how regolith is formed and distributed. The problem lies with jr Knowing's belief.

Indeed.  It only took five pages to drag him to a cognition that expecting ejecta to settle like snowfall has no basis in science.  And now we're off and running on the next variation of "Something in these photos just doesn't look right to me."  Just like in his other thread where he flitted from one variation to another on, "The LM just doesn't look right to me."  And now we'll have to do another round of getting our posts just the right length and depth to meet his capricious standards, only to be reprimanded again for treating him so shabbily.

The guy is carrying on like a troll now.

[jfb]

]
The problem lies not with how regolith is formed and distributed. The problem lies with jr Knowing's belief.

Indeed.  It only took five pages to drag him to a cognition that expecting ejecta to settle like snowfall has no basis in science.  And now we're off and running on the next variation of "Something in these photos just doesn't look right to me."  Just like in his other thread where he flitted from one variation to another on, "The LM just doesn't look right to me."  And now we'll have to do another round of getting our posts just the right length and depth to meet his capricious standards, only to be reprimanded again for treating him so shabbily.

The guy is carrying on like a troll now.

He has for quite a while, almost from the beginning.  The innocent JAQ phase lasted about a day IIRC.

[benparry]

do you still hold that opinion with JR

It's still better to provide answers than not to provide answers.  The cheerfulness with which I do so, however, is greatly affected by what kinds of shenanigans each individual tries to pull.

lol good answer. It is fun to watch

[Dalhousie]

The basic argument in the first post - that lunar regolith would accumulate like snow - was based on false assumptions.  However the most incoherent part of the argument presented was:

the absence of regolith on rocks was probably done for esthetics.

However if it the surface was faked with aesthetic considerations in mind, it would most likely have conformed to aesthetic expectations of the time, illustrated by films such as Destination Moon (1950), The first men in the Moon (1964),2001(1968, or the artwork of Bonestall (1962). Steep, jagged mountains and a rocky surface, not rolling rounded hills and a loose surface regolith with scattered rocks.

[Dalhousie]

But why fake it with those aesthetics during the Apollo period when we already knew that the lunar surface looked nothing like that from a succession of robotic missions?

[Dalhousie]

And of course with every likelihood that there would be other missions to come that would pick up any inaccuracies if they existed - as has been the case

[Dalhousie]

Far more logical to accept that the the lunar surface looks this way in the Apollo images because they were actually taken on the Moon

[jr Knowing]

Hi Dalhousie,

You clearly have a point. Saying it was done because of aesthetics does make little sense. Shoemaker et al had this mapped out well in advance for the real thing or for faking it .

BTW, speaking of Shoemaker, does anybody find Shoemaker's death suspicious?  If the moon landings were faked, it would almost be certain that Shoemaker would have to have had a hand in constructing the set. (he was also Cronkite's color commentator on tv). In all likelihood his death was most likely a tragic accident. He died in a remote part of Australia outside of Alice Springs. He was hit head on by a transport truck. The only thing I find odd about it, it came just a couple years after Armstrong name checked him in his now famous "Truth's protective layer's" speech at the WhiteHouse. He could of talked about anybody reminiscing about the moon landings but Shoemaker's name was the only one. And the speech wasn't really about reminiscing about the landings at all. It almost reads as a confession they didn't go. He starts by comparing himself to a parrot. Parrots don't fly well and they repeat what they are told. He then literally says the country had asked them to "do the impossible". But he doesn't follow that up by saying we accomplished it anyways. Instead, he rationalizes that the space age has increased our knowledge of the universe "a thousand fold" to the point we have a space shuttle flying overhead. (so wait, we went to the moon in '69 but the shuttle is now our crowning achievement?) He then cryptically talks about "removing one of truth's protective layer's". While it is debatable what he meant, many point to the fact he is talking about the firmament. Truth is God. And one of God's protective layers was the firmament in the bible that that is a protective layer over earth that can't be penetrated. While I personally don't believe there is a firmament, Neil was a very religious man. So if he is referring to the firmament he is suggesting that we cannot go the moon.

(And while all this may seem crazy, Wernher Von Braun, the man behind the Saturn program, also bizarrely on his own tomb stone puts only one thing on it, Psalms 19:1 ... "the firmament sheweth its handywork". Of the 4 or 5 billion people on earth at the time, Von Braun, given he sent a manned rocket to the moon, he should have been the very, very, very, very, very, very last one on earth to put something like this on his tombstone but he did. Completely bizarre)
 
In short, Armstrong's 25th Anniversary speech had little to do with 'the good old days of being on the moon' but rather the whole speech was about obstacles too great to overcome, he likens himself to a parrot asked to do the impossible and overcome insurmountable layers/barriers. This wasn't some off the cuff speech, it was a well thought out statement. What he truly meant by this statement, we may never know. But he was being cryptic for some reason. And it makes no sense why he is being cryptic. And that's why I question why he named checked Shoemaker in the speech. Was he calling him out for some specific reason apart from using him to illustrate that space with its "celestial fireworks etc" is a very dangerous place? (ie too dangerous for man) or was calling him out for another unknown reason?

[Jason Thompson]

Hi Dalhousie,

You clearly have a point. Saying it was done because of aesthetics does make little sense.

Right, so you now concede no such thing was done?

Shoemaker et al had this mapped out well in advance for the real thing or for faking it .

BTW, speaking of Shoemaker...

[snip]

...Wernher Von Braun

Irrelevant and trying to shift the discussion away from the original point. Are you conceding your expectations about how the lunar surface should look were wrong?

[JayUtah]

Saying it was done because of aesthetics does make little sense.

So do you have a substitute reason that does make sense?  Or are you finally prepared to admit that your claim was nonsensical and misinformed, and should be rejected?

BTW, speaking of Shoemaker...

Don't change the subject.  When you are rightly corrected, admit the correction and adjust your beliefs accordingly.  Don't try to dilute the effects of your personal failures with reams of new speculative, subjective incredulity or irrelevant raccontage.

[JayUtah]

The guy is carrying on like a troll now.

Even more so with his latest free-associative screed.  They always start out in these forums with "reasonable questions," but don't last long before lapsing into a frantic grab at every scrap of fringe lore.  Let the Gish gallop commence.

[onebigmonkey]

We've now joined the realms of babbling idiocy. Conspiracy theorists have several things they find difficult (other than the ability to read and digest relevant information with impartiality), 3D thinking and metaphors are two of them.

Armstrong employed a metaphor, a very similar one to that used in his speech to Congress in 1969.

Von Braun chose an apt biblical verse for his tombstone.

Neither person was alluding to anything. Deciding on their behalf what they meant won't wash and then pinning this to the flagpole as fact is just nonsense.

Shoemaker died in a car crash. People do this a lot. Well, technically they only do it once, but car accidents are not infrequent and people with interesting careers are not immune to them.

And it's "could have", not "could of".

[JayUtah]

We've now joined the realms of babbling idiocy.

And armchair psychology, all carried into the "If I Ran the Zoo" zoo on a Gish gallop of assumption and speculation.  I think it was Rene who authoritatively interpreted an instance in which Buzz Aldrin became emotional as extreme guilt over his role in the hoaxed landings.  And somehow these claimants expect those arguments actually to be taken seriously.

I'm not going to deign Jr Knowing's latest self-indulgent drivel with a detailed response.  The only thing worth noting in it is his fidelity to the same pattern of argument he's employed so far.  The way he would have done things, or the way he understandings things should be done, or the way he understands the world to be, is the inviolable gold standard by which the behavior of the natural world and of other people should be judged.  Such narcissistic methods rarely result in useful knowledge.  What's worse is that he stapled the latest vanity-driven rant to a half-baked concession that yet another one of his assumptions in this thread has fallen by the wayside.  Ejecta doesn't settle like snow, projectiles come down as fast as they go up, collisions between rocks are elastic, and (finally) the prevailing aesthetic of the lunar landscape in 1969 doesn't match what was photographed.  And that's not even starting to touch the myriad assumptions he deployed in his other thread, and is now pathetically trying to replay.  If one is repeatedly forced to walk back assumptions that fail in factual support, at what point should one be expected to have learned from the experience?  At what point can we expect that future arguments won't be simply more than titillating gossip wrapped around presumption and speculation?

I see no evidence that Jr Knowing intends to argue according to verifiable facts, or knows what it means to do so.  He's turned his presentation into the worst breed of coffee-klatch gibberish.

[jr Knowing]

Hi Jay and everyone,

Fair enough. If the pre Apollo surface photos are real, my concerns are surely diminished.

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.

[Jason Thompson]

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.

It's not a tangent to talk in more depth about the various things you are throwing at the argument, or the manner in which you do so. It's relevant. You are using 'tangents' in place of actually addressing the rebuttals to your argument.

I still await your repsonse to my request, made several times, to use the mathematical equation in the memo you brought to the table to show LM instability, or to concede you were mistaken.