Holy piss, the Apollo moon missions were fake?!
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
- Status
Anyone who looks at it can see that it doesn't make contact with the surface when it falls. Your explanation is a little vague. Please identify what you say is the force that makes the dust move.
Holy piss, the Apollo moon missions were fake?!
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.com/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html "Moonstones" have no possibility to be compared on moon itself, because there is no possibility of a neutral control on the "moon". So, it's permitted for anybody to claim this or that stone would come...
Dust stuck to the lid that gets shaken off when the lid comes to an abrupt stop. How hard you gonna try to not understand that?Anyone who looks at it can see that it doesn't make contact with the surface when it falls. Your explanation is a little vague. Please identify what you say is the force that makes the dust move.
Holy piss, the Apollo moon missions were fake?!
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.com/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html "Moonstones" have no possibility to be compared on moon itself, because there is no possibility of a neutral control on the "moon". So, it's permitted for anybody to claim this or that stone would come...jazzfanz.com
Sent from my SM-G973U using JazzFanz mobile app
If that were the case, it wouldn't move away in a straight stream the way it does. The movement of the dust is consistent with its being blown by air.
Dances With Clowns
Member
Anyone who looks at it can see that it doesn't make contact with the surface when it falls. Your explanation is a little vague. Please identify what you say is the force that makes the dust move.
Holy piss, the Apollo moon missions were fake?!
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.com/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html "Moonstones" have no possibility to be compared on moon itself, because there is no possibility of a neutral control on the "moon". So, it's permitted for anybody to claim this or that stone would come...
Read carefully: There is nothing vague about my statement whatsoever. A flat surface falling at that speed is going to generate a significant draft in the direction of the fall with some spill to the sides. Clearly there is none in that direction, with obviously copious amounts of visible dust undisturbed. Explain how this is remotely possible.
Now you are clearly afraid to address this totally obvious fact. This piece of footage proves it was shot in a vacuum, because there is simply no way to get a tiny puff of disturbed dust to an edge, with zero displacement in a far more energetic direction. Please don't group your very poor claim into the realm of what "anyone who looks at it" will determine. The lid on the battery cover is striking raised lips around the batteries, the actual lid has a flexible foam like heat protection covering it. Animation to show the process:
That is now 3 times you have avoided the obvious and ANYONE can see that. But then again you have been doing this nonsense for 2 decades so the chances of getting you to provide honest responses is less than zero:
Twenty years of failure
Last edited:
We can't see what's happening under the lid. In order to make the statement you're making all the factors have to be known. It's possible that there was a seal around the inside edge and the only place for the air to escape was where we see the dust. Anyway, vibration wouldn't cause the dust to move in that manner. Only moving air would blow it that way.
It's not vibration, it's momentum.
You are trying hard as **** to not understand things.
Sent from my SM-G973U using JazzFanz mobile app
Dances With Clowns
Member
We don't need to.
Rubbish. ALWAYS a falling flat surface will displace air in the direction of fall. It is basic physics. Quite clearly the astronaut pushes the lid shut increasing the draft.
That is a total crock, well before the lid reaches the surface of the battery air is displaced forward, progressively more concentrated as the area beneath it compresses. I even gave a video showing the design of the battery and cover! Air isn't "escaping" it is being displaced forwards.
You seem to revel in making BS claims. What experience have you of low gravity and vacuum ? None. What simulation tests of this on Earth have you carried out? None. A small impact on the Moon would exaggerate any vibration/collision effect by 6, that is dust thrown an inch by an impact would be thrown 6 on the Moon.
Bare assertion from ignorance and by way of evasion. WHERE IS THE AIR in the main forwards fall? Try again, address the issue. That is now 4 times you have failed to do so!
A flat surface falling at that speed is going to generate a significant draft in the direction of the fall with some spill to the sides. Clearly there is none in that direction, with obviously copious amounts of visible dust undisturbed. Explain how this is remotely possible.
Dances With Clowns
Member
Absolutely, it doesn't even have to be a vibration, just a collision.
Look closely at the point where the dust blows away. There`s no collision. the lid stops before it touches the surface. Air blows downward at the corner and hits the surface which blows the dust that's on the surface. There's no other identifiable force that would make the dust move that way.
Somewhere two parts hit each other and cause the lid to abruptly stop moving. Can we agree on that?
Sent from my SM-G973U using JazzFanz mobile app
DWC has been making points that you are not addressing @Cosmored. Do you have any intention of addressing them?
Sent from my SM-G973U using JazzFanz mobile app
Sent from my SM-G973U using JazzFanz mobile app
Yes but it's not where the dust is. In a vacuum the shock of the lid falling might cause the dust to bounce up and fall back down but there would be no force that would propel it away. The only identifiable force that's propelling it away is air. We don't know why it only blows away in that particular spot. In order to know that we'd have to be able to examine the underside. We can't do that so we can't come to any conclusions on why there's only air blowing in that particular spot.
Red
Well-Known Member
Lunar atmospheric composition....
www.nasa.gov
Is There an Atmosphere on the Moon?
Until recently, most everyone accepted the conventional wisdom that the moon has virtually no atmosphere.
Momentum doesn't exist on the moon?
Pretend the rock is a speck of moon dust and the catapult is the lid. Pay extra special attention to the fact that nothing hits the catapult in the spot where the rock is. Air is not required for a catapult to work. The dust gets catapulted off the lid.
If it was air, as Dancing With Clowns has pointed out at least a few times, the effect would have had to be greater because we can see dust on the base where the lid lands and it is not disturbed.
Last edited:
As I said, it would probably bounce a little but there's no force making it go in that direction at that speed. The movement of the dust is entirely consistent with the air explanation.
Holy piss, the Apollo moon missions were fake?!
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.com/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html "Moonstones" have no possibility to be compared on moon itself, because there is no possibility of a neutral control on the "moon". So, it's permitted for anybody to claim this or that stone would come...
And let me just say, I'm venturing dangerously close to a thing that annoys me a great deal, which is when laymen debate a technical issue at length despite not having the qualifications to present the facts of the case in a precise and accurate way.
All I really need to say is that the portion of the video you pointed us towards specifically was less than convincing for me and you have not proven yourself to be credible largely by presenting that part of the video as being irrefutable proof when it most certainly is not. Your emphatic defense of that as meaningful evidence is pretty much all I need to know about your ability to judge facts and evidence.
All I really need to say is that the portion of the video you pointed us towards specifically was less than convincing for me and you have not proven yourself to be credible largely by presenting that part of the video as being irrefutable proof when it most certainly is not. Your emphatic defense of that as meaningful evidence is pretty much all I need to know about your ability to judge facts and evidence.
Can you show the math that proves out that analysis? What's the mass of the dust? What's the rate of acceleration? Stuff like that...As I said, it would probably bounce a little but there's no force making it go in that direction at that speed. The movement of the dust is entirely consistent with the air explanation.
Holy piss, the Apollo moon missions were fake?!
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.com/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html "Moonstones" have no possibility to be compared on moon itself, because there is no possibility of a neutral control on the "moon". So, it's permitted for anybody to claim this or that stone would come...
- Status