The post that was quoted here has been removedAnd another relevant question would be why D64 continues to rant on and on and on, hurling insult after insult to MANY folks here but of course that will just be taken as another insult by you, apparently because you don't read past the first sentence of anyone's posts here.
Like I said, ranting on and on with the same story line. Why bother responding to such an obvious low life as me? @Duchess64
- Joined
- 28 Feb 19
- Moves
- 4750
Are you two married?
You argue like you are.
Can either of you tell me why there was no blast crater in the lunar photos?
Also the module was clean as a whistle after landing. Wouldn't it be covered in moon dust from the landing?
Netflix has a conspiracy video about the moon landing I just watched.
Also, the Japanese recently sent a probe to take pics of the moon landings but the pics were of later moon landings. I can't find any of the first moon landing.
Please stop arguing for a minute and answer these for me sonhouse?
Or whoever worked at NASA.
Thanks 😉
why there was no blast crater in the lunar photos?Rowin Side
It would be a mystery if there was a real 'crater'! At most it would have left only a vague impression on the dust on the ground. Very little force was exerted on the ground when it landed there. It certainly wouldn't be like a bomb dropping on the ground that would throw great big rocks around! How forceful and violent did you think this landing was?
Also the module was clean as a whistle after landingHow do you know this? Tiny particles of dust on it may not show up in the photos. Also, vibrations would readily shake dust off it.
Wouldn't it be covered in moon dust from the landing?It probably was. But it would have been only an extremely fine coating of dist that may not readily show up in the photos unless there was a great deal of it but not that much was thrown up. Moon dust is extremely fine grained.
- Joined
- 28 Feb 19
- Moves
- 4750
Ok I'm sure you are right.
I assumed a rocket/thruster would be needed below the rover for landing.
I assumed it would have to be powerful.
I'm basing my idea of landings from movies.
Why are some of the shadows inconsistent with where the sun is? The shadows should all point in the same direction but in the photos you can see that is not the case. If the sun was the only light source then the shadows would all be going in the same direction no?
@rowin-side saidThey aren't inconsistent with where the sun is.
Why are some of the shadows inconsistent with where the sun is?
I once saw a documentary about this where an experiment was done; A photo was taken of a rocky desert that looked similar to that of the surface of the Moon and clearly none of the shadows pointed in the same direction in that photo. This is mainly because the ground wasn't perfectly level i.e. not exactly horizontal but rather had slight dips and mounds and variations in gradients etc that effected the direction of the shadows to make them appear different in different parts of the picture.
Also, there are various optical distortion effects from the camera and camera lens (because no optical system is perfect) that can be shown to make the shadows sometimes appear to point in differents direction even if the ground is perfectly level and even if the shadows are in actuality all pointing in the same direction.
The shadows should all point in the same directionNo, the shadows should NOT all point in the same direction because the ground there isn't perfectly level. If they were always shown to point in all the same direction then that would be suspicions because that would mean not only the ground was perfectly level but also the camera and the camera lens was perfect with zero optical distortions, which we generally would expect to be very unlikely to be the case. If all the shadows where always pointing the same way, I think you might be on to something; but they weren't. They were pointing in various directions just like we should expect.
@rowin-side saidThere are lots of things like that that were explained, like the thread on the moon rock, supposed proof of fakery when in fact it was a thread on a photo plate there when the picture was taken, so naturally the moon lander fake crowd saw that they jumped on it like a dog on a bone. All this will come to a screeching halt as soon as we get back to the moon and see the footprints directly, hopefully by China or Italy, ANYONE but NASA which would just fuel more fakery charges. It would be a bit harder for the faker crowd to include China in the grand conspiracy, eh.
Ok. I stand corrected. 😉 Thanks for explaining everything.
The thing about a powerful rocket needed to get off the moon is this: Lunar gravity is about 1/6th that of Earth so you need therefore only 1/6th of the thrust to achieve the same acceleration so it is a lot easier to get off the moon than it is to get off Earth.