Although I am a scientist and have always assumed the lunar landings to be true, there is one compelling hiccup in the photographic evidence that is rarely discussed and has no apparent resolution.
The lunar surface is dusty, lots of tiny loose particles are evident in footage whenever astronauts are filmed walking on the surface. In so doing they continually kick up that dust.
When a landing pod descends it must fire its retro-rockets to slow the speed of impact. On the moon, that creates a flurry of dust above the surface until the engine is switched off and under the lunar gravity the dust settles on the surface once again. The Apollo pod had several landing legs with flat wide feet. In all footage seen since 1969 there is no lunar dust sitting on any of the pods feet.
Unless the first two astronauts, Armstrong and Aldrin, were intensely 'moon proud' and took a broom with them this is a distinct and major flaw in archived footage.
Originally posted by BasmaniaThat's been brought up many times by conspiracy advocates, it's nothing new, and it's been explained, PATIENTLY, as many times as the "waving flag" claims.
Although I am a scientist and have always assumed the lunar landings to be true, there is one compelling hiccup in the photographic evidence that is rarely discussed and has no apparent resolution.
The lunar surface is dusty, lots of tiny loose particles are evident in footage whenever astronauts are filmed walking on the surface. In so doing they contin ...[text shortened]... 'moon proud' and took a broom with them this is a distinct and major flaw in archived footage.
Just google it and you will be enlightened.
I'd explain it for you but I'm not going to do that much typing.
So you're A SCIENTIST eh?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by BasmaniaThe surface is dusty, and you see that with the dust kicked up by the lunar rover
Although I am a scientist and have always assumed the lunar landings to be true, there is one compelling hiccup in the photographic evidence that is rarely discussed and has no apparent resolution.
The lunar surface is dusty, lots of tiny loose particles are evident in footage whenever astronauts are filmed walking on the surface. In so doing they contin ...[text shortened]... 'moon proud' and took a broom with them this is a distinct and major flaw in archived footage.
on later missions.
But you are over estimating the dust blowing power of the engine and you're
forgetting that there is no air.
why is that important?
because the blast of the rocket goes down hits the ground and gets diverted
sideways, and in the landing footage you can see the dust being blown sideways.
With no air the dust will continue on a ballistic trajectory till it hits something,
It wont swirl around drifting in the air this way and that till it settles on the ground.
Thus most of the dust will simply blow past the landing feet.
Also the lack of air makes the 'jet blast' much weaker, the rocket is blasting out
a very small amount of propellent at very high speeds, which dissipates very
rapidly.
In an atmosphere the air would also get accelerated, slowing the jet velocity,
but increasing the mass, which significantly ups the amount of dust transport.
Also with no weathering the lunar dust is very sharp, which means it locks together
much better than regular sand does on earth, which is why the 'footprint' was so
sharp without the presence of water.
This combined with the low power of the rocket needed to lift the lunar lander
in lunar gravity and you come to the conclusion that what actually happened is
what you would expect to have happened.
Which is always nice.
An interesting reply, thank you. Taking your premise that the dust is blown out sideways from beneath the rocket engines two conditions apply. The landing feet are set at a wider circumference than the narrowly housed engines immediately beneath the pod.
Blowing dust outwards would then mean it falls beyond the wider perimeter of the landing feet. Additionally, as you've pointed out the dust would be propelled outward but obviously it must go in all directions, causing some dust located under one leg to rise and then fall onto the landing feet of another leg. As stated, no dust is seen on the feet.
Alternatively, when the dust is propelled a greater distance outwards from the landing craft, there should be an evident dust ring or tell-tale circumference of dust around the landing area as forces dislodging dust (in the absence of an atmosphere) will be equal in every direction. There is none to be seen. This feature is strange because by the same token astronauts trudging across the surface with less force leave a distinctive impression, or footmarks in dislodged dust.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by BasmaniaThe lander only had one main engine, located centrally, with the feet arranged around it.
An interesting reply, thank you. Taking your premise that the dust is blown out sideways from beneath the rocket engines two conditions apply. The landing feet are set at a wider circumference than the narrowly housed engines immediately beneath the pod.
Blowing dust outwards would then mean it falls beyond the wider perimeter of the landing feet. Addit ...[text shortened]... oss the surface with less force leave a distinctive impression, or footmarks in dislodged dust.
The dust was blown radially outward from the centre.
If you watch the landing footage you see dust/gasses being blowing out (like sand blowing
on a beach) at the speed it's travelling it will travel a good way before landing (on the moon
low gravity/no air resistance).
If you also take into account that the jet from the engine would blow any dust off the feet till
it was turned off, the small amount of dust we are talking about, and the fact that the dust
trajectories would all be ballistic, and you don't expect to see much/any dust on the landing
feet.
You wont get any dust blown up from under one foot landing on another as the jet is centrally
located blowing dust outwards..
If you have seen a strong gust of wind blow sand around on a beach you will know that blowing
small amounts of sand around on a sandy beach leaves almost no trace when the sand stops
blowing.
The engine didn't have enough power to dig any great hole or blow much dust around at all,
and the blown dust density will of course diminish by an inverse square law as you move away
from the centre.
Given the tiny amount of blown dust is exactly the same colour as the non blown dust, and
everything is covered in dust, why would you expect to see a dust ring?
On the other hand the astronauts footprints are structured, and so rather than lightly dusting
tiny amounts of dust on dust, the boots left deep structured imprints in the dust. And so are
clearly visible.
Also given that the footage of the landing shot out the lander window shows dust blowing,
if you were to believe that they faked the landing they obviously thought to have the engine
blow dust around on landing, the easiest way to do that would be to have the 'fake' lander
craned into the set with a gas jet coming out the bottom. So if you were right and this should
have left clear marks they should have been visible on the set.
To believe that the landing was faked based on this 'evidence' you are requiring the people
behind the biggest, most encompassing, technologically challenging, and successful conspiracy
in history to have thought about the effect the engine would have on the lunar surface,
replicated its effects, and then screwed up by using a different set without the effects on it.
Originally posted by googlefudgeDude, He's A Scientist, so when he looks a a photo taken from a distance and doesn't see tiny dust particles clinging to the Gold foil on the lander he knows what he's talking about.
The lander only had one main engine, located centrally, with the feet arranged around it.
The dust was blown radially outward from the centre.
If you watch the landing footage you see dust/gasses being blowing out (like sand blowing
on a beach) at the speed it's travelling it will travel a good way before landing (on the moon
low gravity/no air r ated its effects, and then screwed up by using a different set without the effects on it.
Obviously with no atmosphere or moisture, in a vacuum, you wouldn't think the dust would settle to the surface, it'd stick to something and we'd see it in the photos because they were all close-ups, right?
Oh...wait....no they weren't, and even if they were there wouldn't be anything there.
But hey, he's A SCIENTIST.
The attempt to put a man on the moon was real but they never got there.
NASA screwed up big time by sending them to Mars by mistake because some idiot pointed their telescopes the wrong way.
So, to cover-up their embarrassing incompetence, NASA just pretended the planet was the moon.
When the men got to Mars, they discover life there. But NASA had to cover-up that as well because else they would have to say they found life on ...the moon, which is absurd!
To make matters worse, those men never came back and they are still on Mars:
When the time came to come home and NASA called them to come home, with the astronauts life support exhausted and their oxygen running out, they said “we are just fine where we are THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!! 😠“. So their space vessel was sent on autopilot back to Earth.
That means, of course, the rocks brought back are Mars-rocks, NOT moon-rocks.
NASA had to employ some third-rate Hollywood actors to act as the astronauts coming home who are still playing their part today.
Originally posted by googlefudgeYes there's a bunch of sites that destroy all the moon hoax claims and show how pathetic they are, the problem is hoax believers refuse to read them.
Funny story...
moving on ;-p
http://www.space.com/4956-lunar-landers-sandblasted-moon.html
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
EDIT: oh and Mythbusters does the Moon.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mefEKqzq8cg
Originally posted by Sam The ShamGive the guy a break! If he says he is a scientist, then he is probably a scientist. There is more than one science and if he is say, a marine biologist, he would not know a whole lot about physics but he is still a scientist.
My point is that you must really suck at it, Mister Scientist.
Originally posted by sonhouseExactly.
Give the guy a break! If he says he is a scientist, then he is probably a scientist. There is more than one science and if he is say, a marine biologist, he would not know a whole lot about physics but he is still a scientist.
My girlfriend is essentially a scientist, she has a Master of Science (MSc) degree in Rehabilitation Science. She doesn't know a thing about physics.