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?
