I may have new evidence to prove we never went to the Moon

Originally posted by Intothepitwego

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Umm...maybe you should read it more closely -- keeping in mind the context of your argument...

(ngchunter -- correct me if I'm wrong), but I think ngchunter was pointing out that if YOU are arguing that this was filmed in a studio on Earth, the the spinning tires WOULD IN FACT create wind turbulance -- which was not observed in the video.

That would be just as stupid. That would mean that any footage of sand buggies or any other vehicle common to rome over dust kickup materials would all have this turbulence effect that is noticable on earth but not in the rover footage...care to offer an example....?

[edit on 17-1-2009 by Intothepitwego]

Now you are obfuscating the main argument by zeroing in on silly little arguements.......OF COURSE there is only very slight and almost imperceptable wind turbulance caused by spinning tires -- but it DOES in fact exist, along with the turbulance caused by the moving rover itself -- that is, if the Moon rover video was truly filmed on Earth.

Here is a video about the design of the rovers:
www.youtube.com...
watch from 6:49 to 7:51 of this video to see a prototype rover moving on Earth. In most of that footage, you can see the dust being affected by the turbulance caused by the moving rover -- turbulance not seen in the Moon videos.

[edit on 1/18/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

Originally posted by Intothepitwego
Really? Are you even reading what you write? So you are trying to prove there is no atmosphere and as part of that you indicate that the turning tires turbulate the air behind them?

They would if there was air to "turbulate." There is no turbulence evident in the dust behind the rover, therefore there is no air. I know Soylent already cleared this up with you, but I felt it beared repeating.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People


Now you are obfuscating the main argument by zeroing in on silly little arguements.......OF COURSE there is only very slight and almost imperceptable wind turbulance caused by spinning tires -- but it DOES in fact exist, along with the turbulance caused by the moving rover itself -- that is, if the Moon rover video was truly filmed on Earth.

Huh? Are you saying that you also see atmospheric disturbances in the "moon" rover footage? You lost me here because it seems as though you are admitting you see it although it is barely perceptable.

Here is a video about the design of the rovers:
www.youtube.com...
watch from 6:49 to 7:51 of this video to see a prototype rover moving on Earth. In most of that footage, you can see the dust being affected by the turbulance caused by the moving rover -- turbulance not seen in the Moon videos.

[edit on 1/18/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]

You really think people have not tried this on me already? The only difference I can see is a completely different material being kicked up.

We can settle this quite easily you know. What is the weight of moon dust on the moon and what speed was the rover moving at. Not only can we run a perfect simulation that shows it should be going much much higher (6 times as high as on earth) as well as the shape of the plume. It should not resemble a rooster tail no matter what the rover is doing or what the dust weighs. The only way to get a rooster tail is to have an atmosphere. I still see plenty of rooster tailing.

Originally posted by ngchunter
They would if there was air to "turbulate." There is no turbulence evident in the dust behind the rover, therefore there is no air. I know Soylent already cleared this up with you, but I felt it beared repeating.

I do not see any more turbulence behind the wheels in any earth footage than I do in the alledged moon footage.

reply to post by Intothepitwego


Do you see the turbulence in this car's dust cloud or not?
comps.fotosearch.com...

Originally posted by Intothepitwego
Huh? Are you saying that you also see atmospheric disturbances in the "moon" rover footage? You lost me here because it seems as though you are admitting you see it although it is barely perceptable.

No, that's clearly not what he's saying. He's saying that if there were an atmosphere, the tires themselves would create a tiny bit of turbulence in the dust cloud the vehicle would leave behind. There is no atmosphere in the footage, so there is no dust cloud left behind, let alone any turbulence in said non-existent cloud.

You really think people have not tried this on me already? The only difference I can see is a completely different material being kicked up.

The difference is due to the presence of an atmosphere, not due to the "material." Nice fallback position.

it should be going much much higher

Prove it. I already posted a simulation video that perfectly recreated the shape of the plume without an atmosphere, you ignored it. If you want to claim that the moon dust should be even higher than it already is (and to me it looks much higher than any dust should be going in a vacuum on earth), then it's up to you to prove it.

Another Moon Laser story:

www.youtube.com...

MoonFaker: Exhibit D. PART 6.

Laser reflection always worked before mirrors.

Even with the mirror repetitive pulses are needed for a
statistically averaged measurement.

Seeing raw data come in as I saw in one Mythbuster
episode was a disappointment.


ED: Not recorded in history that I came across, Tesla may
have made radio measurements off the Moon.


[edit on 1/19/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

Originally posted by Chorlton
Did he also paint the mirrors that are still being used to reflect lasers and did he also paint the other radio and sensing equipment they left there?

So, you admit we have humans on Mars, because there are radios, sensing equipment, photographic/video equipment, and robots, right?

Or, did they get to Mars some other way?

Originally posted by Intothepitwego
I do not see any more turbulence behind the wheels in any earth footage than I do in the alledged moon footage.

Forget the plumes, how much air did they have to REMOVE to keep the rover tires from exploding?

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Forget the plumes, how much air did they have to REMOVE to keep the rover tires from exploding?

The rover tires were made out of a wire mesh. Look at some close-up shots of the rover on the Moon. They were not filled with air. I don't think air filled tires would explode anyway, but they are heavier, and with the rugged lunar surface, you may end up with a flat tire rather quickly.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Laser reflection always worked before mirrors.

"Worked" does not mean that the signal strength is not affected strongly by retroreflectors. In fact, the reflectors would increase their signal strength and accuracy one to two magnitudes according to a paper published in 1967 titled "An operational theory of laser-radar selenodesy"

Seeing raw data come in as I saw in one Mythbuster
episode was a disappointment.

Why? It's useful for determining the distance of the moon to within centimeters, so how could it be disappointing?

I just went on youtube to see if I could find the episode
but I found one that had a computational program that
zipped out the data display 123.

Not the case from the episode I was looking for when weak
returns were being logged in.

Naturally I must have commented and that video taken down
for the easy as snap I just saw.

Just how any parts of the Moon surface provide the same reception
might be a key reason for a mirror plant location.

The Russian mirror is apparently operational.
And a reminder no Moon walkers are required.

And who knows how the Moon surface should react, dust on Earth
is attracted to the walls of our homes by static electricity.
And can stick real good.
A very dry atmosphere is even worst.
I got a Xenon bulb (or some blue hue bulb) by the DVD player
in a DTV set that flashes every so often.

I would expect the Moon surface to be a dusty clingy nuisance.
However since the remote Moon rovers had no problem the
dust problem might be mute.

Evidently dust is no problem with any of the mirrors.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
Not the case from the episode I was looking for when weak
returns were being logged in.

Quantify it please. The article I cited quantifies retroreflector returns as magnitudes higher than without.

Just how any parts of the Moon surface provide the same reception
might be a key reason for a mirror plant location.

None provide the same signal return level, which is why the paper I cited was written in the first place.

The Russian mirror is apparently operational.

Operational is not at all the same thing as equivalent to. They had a lower success rate with the robotically placed reflectors than Apollo did with hand placed reflectors, and the russian reflector which does work is also less efficiently pointed.
tau.fesg.tu-muenchen.de...

Evidently dust is no problem with any of the mirrors.

Something would have to kick up a significant amount of dust and cover the mirrors if that was going to be a problem. There have been theories of dust rising up a bit on the lunar terminator, but such theories have not been conclusively proven, let alone proven to be globally true for the moon and not just a localized phenomenon.

[edit on 19-1-2009 by ngchunter]

Originally posted by ngchunter
reply to post by Intothepitwego

 

Do you see the turbulence in this car's dust cloud or not?
comps.fotosearch.com...

I see the rooster tail effect, albeit exaggerated quite a bit. That is the same thing that I see in the rover footage. Thanks for pointing it out. You have no idea how many threads people have tried this on. Trucks in the jungle, cars on dirt roads, sandbuggies on well...sand. Each time someone shows a pic and says "see?" Yes, yes I do see. I see the exact same atmospheric disturbance to one degree less or more in each picture that I see in the moon rover footage.


P.S. I am still waiting for someone to post that footage that is far too long to be on any soundstage.

Jump Room!
We have been to Mars and the moon many times.
The missions were staged to give something to the public.
NASA is only around so the public thinks we are exploring space
and making efforts.

The real space program is something we will never know of
and stems from years of departmentalized projects.

Originally posted by cluckerspud
Jump Room!
We have been to Mars and the moon many times.
The missions were staged to give something to the public.
NASA is only around so the public thinks we are exploring space
and making efforts.

The real space program is something we will never know of
and stems from years of departmentalized projects.

And you can back just one teeny weeny tiny itsy bitsy part of that up with........

Originally posted by Intothepitwego

We can settle this quite easily you know. What is the weight of moon dust on the moon and what speed was the rover moving at. Not only can we run a perfect simulation that shows it should be going much much higher (6 times as high as on earth) as well as the shape of the plume. It should not resemble a rooster tail no matter what the rover is doing or what the dust weighs. The only way to get a rooster tail is to have an atmosphere. I still see plenty of rooster tailing.

Particle size and velocity, and gravity, create the "rooster tail" effect; regardless of atmosphere or vacuum.

The golf ball example demonstrated the 1/6g lunar gravity. The dust kicked up by the LEM exhaust gases, the astronauts' boots, and their excursions demonstrate a lack of wind/atmosphere.

Atmosphere will create a suspension of the finest particles; vacuum will not. All particles follow a ballistic path in a vacuum. Terrestrial experiments on impact and diffusion in a vacuum have demonstrated this time and again.

Speaking of "weight" and gravity and atmosphere, did you forget about the eagle feather and hammer experiment?

As Galileo demonstrated a few years ago, falling bodies will accelerate in a vacuum at the same rate. Air pressure and resistance will affect the rate of fall without reference to mass (ask a skydiver). In the moon's vacuum, the eagle feather and hammer fell at the same rate when dropped simultaneously. No air, no resistance. Lunar gravity tugged at the hammer and feather with an equal amount of force.

I'd like to talk to your physics (and grammar) teachers as well.

Originally posted by Intothepitwego

Originally posted by ngchunter
reply to post by Intothepitwego

 

Do you see the turbulence in this car's dust cloud or not?
comps.fotosearch.com...

I see the rooster tail effect, albeit exaggerated quite a bit. That is the same thing that I see in the rover footage. Thanks for pointing it out.

Well I see no "rooster tail," I see a totally different turbulent dust cloud.

You have no idea how many threads people have tried this on.

Yet somehow you still can't get the facts through your head?

Yes, yes I do see. I see the exact same atmospheric disturbance to one degree less or more in each picture that I see in the moon rover footage.

Dust floats and rolls back on itself in an atmosphere, particularly when the atmosphere is disturbed by a moving vehicle. That simply does not happen in the moon rover footage. I'm sorry, you're just wrong about that.