Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[sts60]

so this issue about the dust-free sand is not about whether they went to the moon.

You are the one who made this claim:

It's easy to make sand dust free by sifting and washing it.

Don't try to run away from it now.

It's about Jay Windley's credibility the credibility of the Clavius site and its forum.

I don't care about your unhealthy obsession with Jay. I am a professional space engineer, and I say not only are you wrong; you don't even begin to grasp what you don't know about the subject.

You claimed that I don't believe what I am saying. Once again, I insist that you provide direct evidence for that claim, or retract it and apologize.

 

[Andy_Ross]

So the Chinese Spacewalk was a fake as well?

What else apart from Apollo and the Chinese Spacewalk is fake?

 

[Erock]

Anyone who actually watches all the footage...

Will see clear signs of weightlessness throughout the transmission.

I see you chose not to comment on your self contradiction. Figures.

I stopped when he discredited himself by trying to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked in a water tank. Here is a different thread where he looked especially silly.

He spanked you on that as well.

http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...missions-were-faked-studio-6.html#post4161022

http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...missions-were-faked-studio-7.html#post4161059

Reading his posts, the man who made the Chinese faked it video, is actually an Apollo believer. I suggest that your credibilty is in question, not his.

I anticipate a few posts disappearing into the Abandon all Hope forum. Anyone who thinks the Chinese faked their spacewalk is bonkers.

 

[abaddon]

I can not say more without being a bad person, but you were to visit the Conspiracy section at the BAUT.......

Boy, it didn't take long.

 

[BazBear]

I can not say more without being a bad person, but you were to visit the Conspiracy section at the BAUT.......

Umm, whoever that was ...got the ban in near record time

 

[SpitfireIX]

A couple of BAUT mods also participate here. That might have had something to do with it.

 

[Erock]

Start reading at post #110.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...20-1969-sir-questions-sir-11.html#post4764783

I actually didn't bother reading this link because your posts bear less fruit than an artificial Christmas tree. But, curiosity got the better of me.

I urge everybody to click that link in the quote and follow the next few posts. I actually felt sorry (well kind of) for the complete mauling he was given.

This one caught my eye -
http://www.politicalforum.com/4765648-post112.html

The video in that post was just so blindingly obvious and conclusive - yet astonishingly FF88 insists it is a bubble in a mystery wave blower tank

 

[Andy_Ross]

yup

 

[threadworm]

Briefly returning to the subject of dust free sand:

Having spent more hours than I care to remember in my under and post-graduate studies producing particle size analysis of soil samples, I can categorically state that washing and sieving soil samples into different size fractions, and then drying them, is time consuming and tedious, and to carry out such a task for an entire 'set' would be a monumental (and utterly pointless) task. Cleaning the Aegean stables would be less work.

I did this this morning: some screenshots taken from the final approach of 'Eagle' to Tranquillity Base superimposed on the most recent LRO image.

 

[abaddon]

Nice work once again, threadworm

 

[Rincewind]

I'm confused...

How did they get the dust-free sand to the moon?

OK, I'll get my coat...

 

[FatFreddy88]

I've never seen any of the prints that show fine outlines actually being made. Can you link to any footage of that?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The flag deployments from Apollo 15 and 17 spring to mind. The really good quality footage, unbroken for quite some time, is on the individual mission box sets, and I am betting big money that you have only seen stuff on youtube

I've watched some of it and I've never seen a print with fine outlines being made. I haven't watched all of it though. If you know of such a case, could you post the link?
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/video17.html#alsepoffload

Let's talk about whether just moving and placing dust-free sand will create enough erosion to make enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1094

Let's not confuse this issue with the issue of how difficult it is to make sand dust-free, or sift it.

In this thread Jay Windley and some other pro-Apollo posters said that the fact that the soil that was kicked up by the rover didn't billow was proof that the footage was taken in a vacuum.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1009&page=1

I countered that it could have been large-grained sand that had been treated to make it dust-free. They all countered that it would have been impossible to transport and place the dust-free sand without causing enough erosion to make enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. My common sense tells me that this is ridiculous. I asked a couple of people with backgrounds in geology and they said that Jay and the other pro-Apollo posters were quite wrong.

Some posters on a geology forum said the same.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1009&page=1

Here's another one of the posts (twelfth post from the top).
http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand

As has been said, washed and clean sand will not erode just by moving it. Sand has a high surface area to volume ratio (at least if it's sub-rounded or better), which makes it stronger against breaking.

Now look what this guy said.
http://geology.about.com/bio/Andrew-Alden-453.htm

Sand like that will be clean and dust-free in the scenario you pose.

Here's where he said it.
http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-geology&tid=628

Now look what Jay Windley said.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1094

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.

I want to hear the opinions of all of the pro-Apollo posters on this issue and please don't talk about other issues such as how difficult it might be to clean and sift sand. Those are different issues.

Who do you agree with? Do you agree with the geologists from the forums, or Jay Windley and those pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum?

 

[Erock]

I've watched some of it and I've never seen a print with fine outlines being made. I haven't watched all of it though. If you know of such a case, could you post the link?

You ask me for examples of this, which tells me what I already knew, that you have no idea about the really long footage(in much better quality than online snippets) where this happens fairly frequently. Only small snippets of the missions are on youtube. Go and buy the box set

Like every hoax believer, you haven't even seen 1/100th of the footage available, so how are you qualified to make any assertion along this line?

I think you are actually playing games. I read through the last few pages of that trainwreck of a thread on Spurstalk, where you appear to be arguing with yourself But also where you have been asking the same questions as here, and already been given the Apollo 15 flag ceremony as an example. It clearly shows prints being made, defined enough for them to hold shape, but also with very fine regolith(clearly visible as such) in numerous places being kicked across the surface and not forming any residual dust cloud.

So. I echo what "Fatfreddy88" on that forum says to you........
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5702778&postcount=3110

"Normal sand does not take flat visible prints, wet sand does.
Wet sand does not kick up like dust, it flies in clumps. There are numerous examples in this clip alone where you can see really fine stuff flashing across the surface."

Your comments please.

p.s. The picture from that link

Who do you agree with? Do you agree with the geologists from the forums, or Jay Windley and those pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum?

This is irrelevant, but I agree with Jay, since this is more about aggregate transport (a civil engineering point), than it is about knowing how to wash sand from a geologist's point of view. Your quote mining of the thread is noted, there are geologists on that thread who contradict each other. I don't really know enough about this, and interestingly enough, neither do you.

On a more general note, I think your excercise in trying to win an "I proved Jay Windley wrong" tee-shirt is rather tedious and repetitive.

 

[Garrison]

Who do you agree with? Do you agree with the geologists from the forums, or Jay Windley and those pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum?

You realize of course that for your question to even begin to make sense you would first have to establish those geologists agreed with you that Apollo was a hoax right? Again you pick some narrow point, on this occasion find some experts who support that point and try to inflate that into them agreeing with your hypothesis. So please point us to the posts where those geologists state that Apollo was hoaxed.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Let's talk about whether just moving and placing dust-free sand will create enough erosion to make enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1094

Let's not confuse this issue with the issue of how difficult it is to make sand dust-free, or sift it.

In this thread Jay Windley and some other pro-Apollo posters said that the fact that the soil that was kicked up by the rover didn't billow was proof that the footage was taken in a vacuum.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1009&page=1

I countered that it could have been large-grained sand that had been treated to make it dust-free. They all countered that it would have been impossible to transport and place the dust-free sand without causing enough erosion to make enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. My common sense tells me that this is ridiculous. I asked a couple of people with backgrounds in geology and they said that Jay and the other pro-Apollo posters were quite wrong.

Some posters on a geology forum said the same.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1009&page=1

Here's another one of the posts (twelfth post from the top).
http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand



Now look what this guy said.
http://geology.about.com/bio/Andrew-Alden-453.htm



Here's where he said it.
http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-geology&tid=628

Now look what Jay Windley said.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1094



I want to hear the opinions of all of the pro-Apollo posters on this issue and please don't talk about other issues such as how difficult it might be to clean and sift sand. Those are different issues.

Who do you agree with? Do you agree with the geologists from the forums, or Jay Windley and those pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum?

What part of "this is an engineering question, and not a geology question" did you not understand?

 

[Andy_Ross]

YOu are suggesting that many truckloads of sand would need to be transported and then spread out over a large area to make a fake moonscape for the rover to drive around on.

I am sure that for small ammounts of sand it is possible to wash and grade to make it dust free. I can't imagine that filling trucks with 30 or 40 tons of sand at a time, transporting then tipping then either shoveling or moving with a mechanical digger or bulldozer wouldn't cause dust.

 

[BravesFan]

There is some hoax evidence that's so clear that it can't be obfuscated...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8014461&postcount=128
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4001964&postcount=1

... so we know Apollo was a hoax so this issue about the dust-free sand is not about whether they went to the moon. It's about Jay Windley's credibility the credibility of the Clavius site and its forum.

This video is about the issue in case any viewers are confused.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc



The issue is not about whether sand can be made dust-free. The issue is about whether just moving and placing dust-free sand will cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

Nowhere in this thread do I see anyone say that.
http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand






Please post an actual quotation from the above thread that says that just transporting and placing sand that's already dust-free will cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

These two quotes from post #7915...


...are not about that issue and do not refute the claim that just transporting and placing dust-free sand will not cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.


The guy who said this seems to have some good credentials.
http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-geology&tid=628

http://geology.about.com/bio/Andrew-Alden-453.htm

He and the people on the other thread disagree with Jay Windley and the other posters on the Clavius forum.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1094

It looks to me like Jay and those other pro-Apollo posters are quite wrong on this issue. It also looks like they weren't simply mistaken, but lying as Jay said he knew what he knew from experience.







Anyone who actually watches all the footage...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8033032&postcount=1

...and compares the movement of the corner of Collins' jacket to the movement of the jacket corners moving on earth will see that it's the same and the puffed up shoulders is not a sign of zero-G. The movement of the back of the jacket is consistent with movement in gravity.



I stopped when he discredited himself by trying to obfuscate the clear proof that the Chinese spacewalk was faked in a water tank. Here is a different thread where he looked especially silly. Start reading at post #110.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...20-1969-sir-questions-sir-11.html#post4764783

Once the viewers know that someone is deliberately trying to obfuscate anomalies, what's the point of continuing? The guy has no credibility.

 

[Toke]

YOu are suggesting that many truckloads of sand would need to be transported and then spread out over a large area to make a fake moonscape for the rover to drive around on.

I am sure that for small ammounts of sand it is possible to wash and grade to make it dust free. I can't imagine that filling trucks with 30 or 40 tons of sand at a time, transporting then tipping then either shoveling or moving with a mechanical digger or bulldozer wouldn't cause dust.

I don't get how the same sand can be dust free and accept sharp prints?

If one want to make a CT scenario why not go for portland cement in a studio under vacuum?

 

[mrbusdriver]

FF88,
this geologist you speak of, creating dust-free sand et al...

Has the lunar surface scenario been presented to him? Would he watch the rover travelling hundreds of feet and say such footage could be done using sand and slow motion? Does he believe this rover footage was faked?
The lunar surface was fine, talcum powder- like dust. The footprints were completely different from those in sand (it would most certainly have to be wet sand to take any prints at all).

I think this geologist's comments need some context.

 

[Craig4]

YOu are suggesting that many truckloads of sand would need to be transported and then spread out over a large area to make a fake moonscape for the rover to drive around on.

I am sure that for small ammounts of sand it is possible to wash and grade to make it dust free. I can't imagine that filling trucks with 30 or 40 tons of sand at a time, transporting then tipping then either shoveling or moving with a mechanical digger or bulldozer wouldn't cause dust.

Let's not forget the number of people required to pull this off, in secret.