Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Travis]

Wait.......what were these legals threats about?

 

[Arisia]

I'd like to add my voice to those thanking the space program experts who've made this a very informative thread.

 

[yodaluver28]

Just wanted to add another THANK YOU! to all the amazing posters who've taught me so much over the last few months of reading this thread.

 

[BaaBaa]

Cue sound....aaaaaaand roll credits!

 

[Border Reiver]

Do we get the comedic outtakes reel?

I always love those.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Cue sound....aaaaaaand roll credits!

As Jay rides off into the sunset: "I don't know who he is, but he sure cleaned up this town."


+1 thank you to everyone else who contributed, also. Things had been pretty dead on the moon-conspiracy front for a while (at least around here, and I hardly ever go to BAUT or Apollohoax anymore). I learned/relearned a lot, both from reading your posts, and while doing research to debunk Patrick's claims.

 

[FatFreddy88]

Now that this thread isn't moderated, this post may not get deleted this time. Let's see.

To Jay Windley-

If you're not going to address this issue...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

...I'll ask you about another issue.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1094

In the above thread you answered my questions thus...

There's nothing impossible about sifting some sand and washing and scrubbing it until it's dust free and then placing it where the rover is going to drive.
-----------------------------------------
It has been clearly explained to you many times why it's impossible to handle particulates without generating dust. You simply say that it somehow didn't happen in this case, but do not say why.

Spinning wheels over dust-free sand would not cause enough sand to erode into dust to make a cloud.
----------------------------------------
The majority of the dust is created as it is removed from the washing apparatus, conveyed to the photography site, and laid down -- not right as the rover wheels pass over it. The rover wheels would aerosolize the dust that was created in those prior steps.

This whole idea of not being able to make sand dust-free is totally silly.
----------------------------------------------------------
Not to the people who have actually tried to do it. And that would not be you.

Look at what people on these geology forums said about the issue.
http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand

Moving and sifting sand is unlikely to produce any finer grains (unless you really go at it and whack it with hammers or something!).

transportation and dumping the sand will not be enough to cause dust creation unless you had a very dirty an dusty transport container.

driving a vehicle thru it will not creat dust either (unless you repeat the process insanely often to grind down the sand grains)

http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-geology&tid=628
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a strange question I hope someone here may be able to help with.
Scenario: imagine washing and sifting several tons of sand. This is to be used on a soundstage to create a desert scene. The sand has been washed and sifted so that if it gets kicked up, it won't form dust clouds. The sand particles are of a size that they will still hold a boot print or a tyre mark.
Question: will the act of transporting the sand, and dumping it in situ, cause sufficient erosion of the sand so that it might still produce some dust when kicked around on the sound stage? Would driving a vehicle on the sand be expected to produce clouds of dust that are visible in the atmosphere, rather than falling straight back down to earth?
In your answer could you also let me know your level of Geology expertise, and whether you consider this a basic question that a layman such as myself should automatically know the answer to?
Once I have some answers I shall let you know the reason for my request, but I don't want to prejudice your answers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sand like that will be clean and dust-free in the scenario you pose. But I don't think it's something the guy-in-the-street would know offhand.

I've also spoken to several people with backgrounds in geology and they all said you were wrong Jay. Could you comment on this issue please?

 

[JayUtah]

By the way, the lunar module electrical power system had a 115 VAC bus and a 28 VDC bus. This is a common division in airframe design. Big-ticket items such as hydraulic pumps live on the high-voltage bus, while most everything else lives on the low-voltage DC bus.

The two cabin/suit fans in the LM were on the 28 VDC circuit. Nominally they drew about 4 watts each. In a DC motor (which does not have AC motor power factors) this draws 0.14 amp. Over the 80-odd hours of LM operation, that amounts to just over 11 amp-hours. The overall battery capacity of the Apollo lunar module is 1,600 amp-hours, so operating the fan continuously required only about 0.7% of the spacecraft's available electrical power.

Curiously the fans operated at 25,000 rpm, which is very fast. They were, in fact, very tiny fans operating at high speed. The noise from these fans was a common crew complaint when trying to sleep aboard the LM.

For a real-world comparison, a typical computer case fan will draw 1-2 watts at 12 volts DC, spin at around 700 rpm and move up to 100 cfm of air at sea level. The difference is that the LM suit fans also had to maintain a higher differential pressure, not just a suitable (pun intended) air flow.

 

[JayUtah]

To Jay Windley

First address my previous posts to you regarding your misrepresentations.

 

[Dcdrac]

Jay you have done a superb job here, I think I saw you on a Tv programme Hoax Busters or something like that

 

[Erock]

If you're not going to address this issue...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

Everybody saw the link to the political forum where this post was absolutely annihilated - also found here on a blog.

I particularly liked this little section from that post...

"I will leave you with just the two comments from my videos made by the user cosmored, who is in fact the same person that created this thread:-

"Collins' jacket corner bounces up and down the way it would in gravity"

Then in reply to my video showing the puffed up back and shoulders of his jacket:-

"In zero-G the jacket would be bouncing up and down on his back if it were loose"

To anybody with rationale, logical thought, with even mild powers of discernement, I would say that fairly conclusively closes the door on that little piece of the "mountain of evidence"."

Do you care to comment on the conclusions or the selected comments you made?

...I'll ask you about another issue.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1094

Why, what exactly are you trying to prove? That it's possible to create a small dust free set? I would say probably yes. The problem would be worsened by creating a bigger one, because with the best will in the world, you will always get dust, albeit small if you took a lot of time with washing it.

But then the surface would not be able to take any prints, and there would not be signs (as in many many examples of Apollo footage) of surface dust being kicked by the astronauts boots. I have seen where Jarrah White says this doesn't occur at the same time, but he is very wrong.

It makes it a monumental "continuity" problem to have a duplicate set for photographs that corresponds exactly to one for video, and just for Apollo 17 that is 21 hours worth of EVA and hundreds of photographs.

Anyway the "could have done something" assertion, does not equate to "it is proven that they actually did do it". Proof. Do you have any?

 

[Dcdrac]

We choose to go to the moon and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouRbkBAOGEw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvWHnK2FiCk

 

[SpitfireIX]

I've been reading Moon Base Clavius on and off for some years now. Found it through good Dr. Phil's site.

Erm, I assume you mean Phil Plait, a.k.a. The Bad Astronomer. To Americans, at least, Dr. Phil is someone very different.

 

[FatFreddy88]

Everybody saw the link to the political forum where this post was absolutely annihilated - also found here on a blog.

He had the attitude that he was winning but he was in fact losing. People can read it and decide for themselves.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...missions-were-faked-studio-2.html#post4076273

Here's the anomaly. Let's hear you people analyze it.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

But then the surface would not be able to take any prints, and there would not be signs (as in many many examples of Apollo footage) of surface dust being kicked by the astronauts boots. I have seen where Jarrah White says this doesn't occur at the same time, but he is very wrong.

Here's Jarrah's video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc

I've never seen any of the prints that show fine outlines actually being made. Can you link to any footage of that?

Why, what exactly are you trying to prove? That it's possible to create a small dust free set? I would say probably yes.

Jay Windley said it was impossible and the geologists said it was possible and now you say it's possible. Is Jay Windley right, or wrong?

 

[sts60]

Now that this thread isn't moderated, this post may not get deleted this time. Let's see.

DavidC, stop pretending that your posts are somehow being censored for truth. If your posts were not approved in this thread, it's because they violated the TOS - something you are known for, and which got you banned elsewhere. (I had posts deleted in this thread for TOS too, but I'm not whining about it.) No one's trying to cover up your Big Truth, because (a) you are wrong and (b) you're simply irrelevant outside of anonymous debates on web forums.

To Jay Windley-

This is an open forum; it's not your personal debate site. So I'll answer.

Look at what people on these geolog...rum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand

DavidC, that was a very interesting job of selective editing you did there. See, I actually read that thread, and the responses flatly refute your Magic Sand claims:
1. The type of sand you need for there to be no dust clouds won't hold bootprints, which lunar soil does beautifully.
2. Several of the respondents remarked that it would be very difficult to get rid of all the smaller dust particles.

I see what you did there. That was very dishonest of you.

...http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum....eology&tid=628

It was also wrong, and in my opinion deliberately done, for you to quote HeadLikeARock's original question without attribution - as if it were your own. And the lone reply in that thread did not address any of the other issues with your claim.

....I've also spoken to several people with backgrounds in geology and they all said you were wrong Jay. Could you comment on this issue please?

Really? With whom, exactly, did you talk? You only made one off-topic post in the first geology thread, and the only response anybody bothered to make was that you put words in his mouth.

See, that's the problem with your posting these selectively-quoted bits, David. Some of us actually read them. Like the guy whose authority you unhesitatingly swallowed, who said there were no images of stars or planets taken from space.

Now that I've answered your question, I ask you - again - to either provide evidence for your claim that I don't believe what I'm saying, or to retract it. This is an explicit request, and I will keep reminding you of it until you do one or the other. Please note that you may not evade the question by pointing to some idiot YouTube video as a belief test; I require explicit evidence, or a retraction and apology. Also, please note that I do you the courtesy of granting that you actually believe your ignorant, paranoid drivel, no matter the chicanery to which you resort in presenting it.

 

[Dcdrac]

I wander if people once believed the first powered flights were a hoax too

 

[Ranb]

Here's the anomaly. Let's hear you people analyze it.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

The jackets and straps moving in zero-g argument again. It is only an "anomaly" because you say so? Ever think that perhaps items do not move around the same because they are pulled around differently or are made of varying material? That is a mundane explanation compared to "Apollo was hoaxed". Have any evidence other than "I said so"?

Ranb

 

[FatFreddy88]

DavidC, that was a very interesting job of selective editing you did there. See, I actually read that thread, and the responses flatly refute your Magic Sand claims:

You're misrepresenting what the thread says to sway those viewers who don't actually click on the link and read it. Here it is.
http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand

That's a pretty low tactic. I urge all viewers and lurkers to withhold judgement until you've actually read the whole thread.

 

[Dcdrac]

You're misrepresenting what the thread says to sway those viewers who don't actually click on the link and read it. Here it is.
http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand

That's a pretty low tactic. I urge all viewers and lurkers to withhold judgement until you've actually read the whole thread.

May I enquire as to what your qualifications to make judgements on geological matters are?

Are you a geologist?

 

[Ranb]

I read the link and feel that FF was selective. Tell us how course sand that does not create dust holds a boot print and does not clump when tossed up by the rover wheels?

Ranb