It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 230
377
<< 227  228  229    231  232  233 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Here is another one,
How is that the ascent stage of Apollo 14 to 17 carried more samples back in weight and number,
yet ended up being lighter than Apollo 11?

history.nasa.gov...


Here once again you are shown to have twisted the facts - that chart does not show that Apollo 14 -17 with samples was lighter than Apollo 11....




posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



Why dont you double check their claims, see if they match up, find out politically how " independent " they are from NASA before saying that you are providing proof?


The United States funds India's mortal enemy, Pakistan, and is the major trading partner of their regional hegemonic rival, China. Presumably you would know that if you spent less time combing NASA web pages looking for typos. You have made it perfectly clear that you refuse to accept any evidence, however concrete, that man has landed on the Moon. That is your choice, but if you refuse to follow current affairs as well, please do Australia a favor and don't vote.



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Please dont tell me you believe this crap



Well it's a lot more believable than the crap you seem to believe...



You take whatever is given to you and accept it as fact.


Well I clearly don't take the rubbish you and your cronies spout as fact, so that's false from the start.



Why dont you double check their claims, see if they match up, find out politically how " independent " they are from NASA before saying that you are providing proof?


I think DJ made it pretty clear where you tripped up on that one



Fact is, you dont want to know if Apollo has been faked, even if it has.


About 10 years ago I did think it had been faked for a relatively short period of time, then as I gained an education and analysed the 'evidence' provided by the HB I quickly realised they were either stupid or simply out to make money. It's not a case of wherever or not I want to believe it was faked, it's a case of the facts clearly show it was real.



Its more comfortable for you to believe its real, regardless of the lies.


Wherever or not the Moon mission was faked is largely irrelevant to my comfort, seeing as I'm British and indifferent to the US.



In other words, if you are a truth seeker you should be skeptical about either side's claims.


There are things I'm skeptical about on the Apollo side of the story, wherever they went or not is not one of them. There were a couple of things Buzz said and his wife told me that are quite interesting, but seeing as you don't think he went I won't waste my time telling you.



Keep everyone honest.


You'd be the last person I'd come to on advice about honesty




I mean this what you have provided raises so many red flags its crazy.
Years? Think about that, thats crazy.


Well OK I exaggerated, the first half of the data is supposed to be up in December this year, I just think they are being slightly optimistic but I might be wrong. Then the second half is being released next year, officially. I'm not sure how long you exactly think it takes to collate that much data and make it available in an organised fashion? Clearly you think it can be done in a very small amount of time, perhaps you should ring the IRSO and offer them your expertise.



If they release any evidence for tracks, Apollo craft, who would believe them?
They have plenty of time to manipulate images.


Clearly not you, which begs a question relating to your previous statement quoted below:


There is no endless hunt.
My position is that its impossible to land men on the moon and bring them back to Earth alive.
Therefore anyone who claims it must be lying and faking their presented evidence.
And this will not change until there is independent third party proof to show otherwise.


Exactly what constitutes acceptable 'third part proof' to you?

Going by your other comment:


But just to add, you have not provided any evidence that the evidence that you have provide cannot be
faked.


You seem to have worked in a nice get out clause enabling you to refuse acceptance of any evidence shown to you.



Secondly, think about what they just said:



However, Chandrayaan’s camera could not capture the images of footprint left behind by the first astronaut on moon, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin,


Well OK, but do they have photos of the flag? LM? scientific experiments? Reflector?


The resolution of the imager was not high enough to capture these relatively small objects Foos, it says it in the article and the resolution is easily found on the Internet. Once again you show even simple research (ie reading what is placed in front of you) is not your strong point.

I think you've made it very clear that whatever your presented with you will always refuse to accept it because you've already made you mind up Foos, I realise that you keep trying to say the same thing reversed but there is one crucial difference - the evidence for Apollo is pretty much indisputable, the evidence for a hoax is patchy, based on bad science and frankly ridiculous.



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by FoosM
 


Hi FoosM

I will bring you back to this picture first posted by jra

files.abovetopsecret.com...

Side by side picture taken by Astronauts as they left the Moon same site taken by LRO even the tracks left by the Astronauts match.


Lets see how you reply to this because I have my reply ready because I think I know WHAT you will claim!
edit on 21-10-2010 by wmd_2008 because: spelling


I has been faked.
What more do you want to know?
Explain to me how this is proof of anything.
Explain to me how it could not be faked?



Exactly THE answer expected from you and most others like you ,Jarra claimed in his videos that if a picture was taken by telescope of the landers on the Moon he would accept the landing BUT he would do exactly the same as you.

The picture above one half taken by the Astronauts as they left the moon shows lander and evidence of them walking etc on the moon the LRO half was taken nearly 40 years later, they match.

The LRO pictures of the landing sites show the landers etc as documeted and pictured by the Astronauts.

Your attitude to any evidence shown PROVES that even if you were flown to the Moon you would claim that was faked as well.

So FoosM what would have to be done for you to accept they did actually go instead of wasting hundreds of pages proving you know very little!
edit on 23-10-2010 by wmd_2008 because: missed word



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 




Please dont tell me you believe this crap
You take whatever is given to you and accept it as fact.


What? Seriously what? I don't see anyone taking crap then accepting it as fact.
I see people that have combed through data and absorbed the knowledge of that data then made arguments for the data being legitimate or not.

This is called the scientific method. Billions of people in search of answers use this method daily to achieve results.


Why dont you double check their claims, see if they match up, find out politically how " independent " they are from NASA before saying that you are providing proof?


Why don't you get off your lazy rear-end from that chair and do the work yourself! You are the one that say the DATA IS FLAWED, show show us the numbers and were your work is showing problems! Unless you can point to what is wrong your just shouting OPINIONS about the data being valid or not, this isn't apart of doing scientific method, mostly apart of FAILING BADLY!

Fact is, you don't want to know if Apollo has been faked, even if it has.


From the data you yourself have provided many times over, has been used to show once and again that the Apollo missions were real and were managed quite well. Funny thing is you always supply the right sets of data to debunk your work and White Noises Work also.

Its more comfortable for you to believe its real, regardless of the lies.

Again you keep sprouting this word "lies" repeatedly and yet I haven't seen a time that you were right that ANYONE has lied! So your opinions might be that its all lies, but you don't accept anything as being legitimate so that wasn't hard to figure out as personal bias. But your point of view doesn't negate anything at all, sorry.


In other words, if you are a truth seeker you should be skeptical about either side's claims.
Keep everyone honest.


When have you been honest yet?



I mean this what you have provided raises so many red flags its crazy.


Like you supporting JW isn't a red flag???




edit on 23-10-2010 by theability because: typing



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Please dont tell me you believe this crap

You take whatever is given to you and accept it as fact.
Why dont you double check their claims, see if they match up, find out politically how " independent " they are from NASA before saying that you are providing proof?
Fact is, you dont want to know if Apollo has been faked, even if it has.
Its more comfortable for you to believe its real, regardless of the lies.

In other words, if you are a truth seeker you should be skeptical about either side's claims.
Keep everyone honest.



Honest?!

You are completely comfortable not only using videos from, but supporting an admitted liar!

Jarrah White made a video where he out-and-out lied about an alleged "expert of perspective", yet you haven't let that stop you from continually posting dozens and dozens of his videos with absolutely NO vetting on your part. You just regurgitate them like a bad burrito.

You're a joke, face it.



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM
 



Why dont you double check their claims, see if they match up, find out politically how " independent " they are from NASA before saying that you are providing proof?


The United States funds India's mortal enemy, Pakistan, and is the major trading partner of their regional hegemonic rival, China. Presumably you would know that if you spent less time combing NASA web pages looking for typos. You have made it perfectly clear that you refuse to accept any evidence, however concrete, that man has landed on the Moon. That is your choice, but if you refuse to follow current affairs as well, please do Australia a favor and don't vote.


Oh come on man, dont tell me as someone who visits ATS you dont know about the old game of arming two rival countries so they can destroy each other slowly. Iraq & Iran comes to mind. And dont tell me you cant see that the US is preparing to invade Pakistan. US aint bombing India with predator drones, LOL. Osama isnt in India, LOL. Or havent you heard about the Grand Chessboard?

But what you have done was a little sneaky.
US funding Pakistan?
So what?
We are talking about a specific space program:


The lunar mission (Chandrayaan-1) carries five ISRO payloads and six payloads from other space agencies including NASA, ESA, and the Bulgarian Aerospace Agency, which were carried free of cost



M3, the Moon Mineralogy Mapper from Brown University and JPL (funded by NASA) is an imaging spectrometer designed to map the surface mineral composition. It was activated on 17 December 2008.[33]



This was confirmed on 24 September 2009, when Science Magazine reported that NASA's Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) on Chandrayaan-1 has detected water on the moon.[



miniSAR, designed, built and tested for NASA by a large team that includes the Naval Air Warfare Center, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman; it is the active Synthetic Aperture Radar system to search for lunar polar ice.


really independent there...

Get some real concrete proof then we can talk.



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM

Get some real concrete proof then we can talk.


Please tell us exactly what you would consider "real concrete proof".



posted on Oct, 23 2010 @ 07:19 PM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


More fruitless hand-waving.

(Like "fingers-in-ears syndrome"). I had once read (someplace, forget where) that the "motive" behind Bart Sibrel's avid "crusade" of attempting to "prove" an Apollo "hoax" stemmed, at core, from his firm RELIGIOUS beliefs, of all things!!! He (Sibrel), it is told, has some twisted view that "god" wouldn't "allow" humans to leave the Earth....he seems to suffer from several delusional demons, of that sort. Are experiencing something similar, here, with "Jarrah White" (noise)?

The logical, rational and, frankly, the former flight instructor in me WANTS to help people understand.....and, although I certainly was never an Astronaut, being a pilot I CAN "grok" a few things, and use MY experience to observe the history, and comprehend its true reality...."putting myself in their shoes", so to speak. I
In fact, I fervently wished that someone like "Jarrah" (or even FoosM) could have joined me, and my friend today, as we went to the National Mall in D.C. (a "Science Fair" underway) and later to the NASM at the Smithsonian. (ALWAYS a great treat, going there....!!)

I could, one-on-one, explain SO much, especially with the hardware, historic items, and being "up-close-and-personal" as the experience allows.

The NASM (National Air and Space Museum) has two locations, now...the one I mentioned, and a much larger facility of display, out near Dulles Airport.

Back to the Mall: A long-standing example (of so many) is a Lunar Module. NOT a "re-creation", but an actual one, built by Grumman. Obviously, never flew....it is the #2 LM manufactured, but some early success altered the testing schedule, and it remained on the ground, for other types of tests. Photos, as posted or resourced online (and in this thread) don't to justice to ACTUALLY standing there, roped off just so you can't quite touch it! There is lots more, of course....the Apollo 11 Command Module....no barriers, but it is encased by a Plexiglas shield, so people's fingers won't disturb history. Yet another Apollo CM, this one flew as part of the Skylab 4 mission, to ferry a crew up and back. I was pointing out, to my friend, the differences in the heat markings on the ships, between Apollo 11 and what is now designated the "Skylab 4" CM. It is because of the speed difference, at atmospheric entry. De-orbiting, from only about 17,000 MPH27,000 KPH, versus the return velocity of Apollo 11, at roughly 24,500 MPH, or about 39,000 KPH.

(The first number is the "orbital velocity", typical of LEO. The second is the speed built up on "Lunar return" --- purely physics, and orbital mechanics, and acceleration of gravity at work, here). You can also compare OTHER Apollo CMs that went to Moon, versus those only sent to LEO. Just one of many links to discussion:

www.braeunig.us...

That is only ONE of my observations...and sharing a whole lot more, here, would just make this post too long. I will have some more links, at the end, as a gift.


Seems that there are an AMAZINGLY HUGE number of very, very educated people , from all around the world, who have looked and looked at the historical facts....and YET? A mere handful of people, similar to "Jarrah White" (noise) and his followers have decided that those EXPERTS are incorrect?
Sorry, but that is hilarious!

But, back to the visit at the NASM. It is highly instructive, and provides context, and dispels ALL of the false claims of any of the Moon "hoax believers", hands down. Because.....the museum has NOT ONLY the space hardware, and information, but it is an "AEROspace" museum, and includes a whole range of other facts and displays relating to more "traditional" aviation....a person who has at least a passing interest soon will realize how it all fits together, when you compare the step-by-step progression of invention in OTHER aerospace fields, such as in airplanes, to the space program. STEP-BY-STEP is how it was achieved. It is how it will be. It is HOW YOU LEARN!!!


Apollo to the Moon -- a NASM virtual tour.

Smithsonian Magazine (.com)

A discussion about Atmospheric reentry (or, just "entry" for some purists) that covers a variety of spacecraft designs.

More about the Apollo-era Lunar Module.

The Tour of DC.org pages about the NASM on the Mall.

Finally, when (IF) you get the chance to visit the area, highly also recommend the NASM at the Udvar-Hazy Center, just because its far more vast, since there's more real estate out there, and more items on display....including the original Shuttle "Enterprise".

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
EDIT! I get tired, providing (giving and giving) so much!


Somewhere, back in a post (recent, forget when exactly) I had a link to a BIG list of museums all around the world, where space hardware are on display. Can't be bothered to re-search....others can do that I expect (??)

I write this "edit" because I realize that ATS comprise a global community, and not all have the ability to travel all the way to the U.S. --- so, be it known, there ARE other museums, scattered around the world.







edit on 23 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: Note.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 


Riiiggghtt........


So who exactly would constitute an adequate supplier of "independent third party proof to show otherwise." Foos?
The Russians? No wait, they and the US collaborate on the ISS so they can't be trusted..
How about Germany, France? No wait, they are all part of the ESA who work with NASA, in fact by definition everyone in Europe is so none of them can be trusted.
Australia? No wait, it's a British Colony and the British are in bed the US so they can't be trusted...
Japan? No wait, the US is a large customer of theirs so it's not in their interest to stab them in the back..

Ah.. I see, no one is adequate third party proof in the modern world where everyone co-operates, how convenient!

Clown.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith

Originally posted by FoosM
Please dont tell me you believe this crap



Well it's a lot more believable than the crap you seem to believe...


Thats a matter of opinion. An opinion you have also seemed to have shared once:



About 10 years ago I did think it had been faked for a relatively short period of time,


So you are a flip-flopper.



then as I gained an education and analysed the 'evidence' provided by the HB I quickly realised they were either stupid or simply out to make money.


So you have gave money to "HB's" and you feel somehow cheated? Or are you opposed to newspapers, investigators, journalist making money?

And thats an interesting choice of words... you gained an education... You mean, you weren't educated before?
What were you like six when you didnt believe in the landings? Or are you saying you were brain washed after?



It's not a case of wherever or not I want to believe it was faked, it's a case of the facts clearly show it was real.




Well you grew up in a world that has maintained that the flights were real. Yet something caused you to doubt the story. It must have been pretty big for you to simply think all those astronauts, scientists, teachers and governments were lying and wrong... what was that? What caused you to doubt?



Wherever or not the Moon mission was faked is largely irrelevant to my comfort, seeing as I'm British and indifferent to the US.


Im sorry I thought the landings were an achievement by MAN. And that it wasnt about one country doing it or not. Wouldnt you have defended the Russians if they did it first? At any rate, it is important because of the influence NASA and the US has over the entire world due to their claimed technological achievements. A lie on this scale damages world wide. History & science books need to be corrected. Treaties and trade agreements might be revisited. Partnerships destroyed.






Secondly, think about what they just said:



However, Chandrayaan’s camera could not capture the images of footprint left behind by the first astronaut on moon, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin,


Well OK, but do they have photos of the flag? LM? scientific experiments? Reflector?


The resolution of the imager was not high enough to capture these relatively small objects Foos, it says it in the article and the resolution is easily found on the Internet. Once again you show even simple research (ie reading what is placed in front of you) is not your strong point.


Then they wouldn't have been able to see the tracks! Especially from the Rover that often times didnt produce any
The tracks are not wider than rover that made them, or the craft that brought the rover there in the first place! Oh, look we can see the footprints but we cant see the man who made them! LOL.

And what did Buzz tell you? Did he see UFOs? Moon Cities? Vegetation? Stars? You believe any of that?



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by FoosM
 



A lie on this scale damages world wide. History & science books need to be corrected. Treaties and trade agreements might be revisited. Partnerships destroyed.


That's quite an agenda you've set for yourself! Destroying the world, one YouTube video at a time....

(I'm out of here until someone says something worth taking an interest in.)



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   

edit on 24-10-2010 by AgentSmith because: duplicate



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
Thats a matter of opinion. An opinion you have also seemed to have shared once:



About 10 years ago I did think it had been faked for a relatively short period of time,


So you are a flip-flopper.


Ermm.. No I'm not a 'flip-flopper', I'm a scientist. Clearly you are not aware of what the 'scientific method' is, as the thought processes involved in my 'flip-flopping' (or as I prefer to call it reviewing my hypothesis) are quite common amongst scientists.



So you have gave money to "HB's" and you feel somehow cheated? Or are you opposed to newspapers, investigators, journalist making money?


No I have never given money to a HB and therefore have only ever felt cheated by the waste of my time, which is far more valuable. I resent the fact that the main HB like Jarrah and Sibrel cheat money out of vulnerable and gullible people through direct sales or simply by generating traffic.



And thats an interesting choice of words... you gained an education... You mean, you weren't educated before?
What were you like six when you didnt believe in the landings? Or are you saying you were brain washed after?


We are constantly being educated and don't finish until we die, your apparant lack of understanding demonstrated by your statement explains why you have such trouble learning.
Like the majority of people I believed in the Moon Landings at face value most of my early life, around the late 90's before the Internet was as widespread I came across alternative ideas through friends and on BBSs that made me question it.
I didn't have an advanced knowledge of radiation for instance, so when I read what seemed to be convincing statements with data that I took on good faith and it painted a rather dark picture I obviously began to wonder. Of course in my quest for the truth along with my college education at the time over time I became capable of carrying out my own calculations and had a better overall understanding of the subject matter, at which point it became painfully obvious even the more 'advanced' HB arguments were false.


Well you grew up in a world that has maintained that the flights were real. Yet something caused you to doubt the story. It must have been pretty big for you to simply think all those astronauts, scientists, teachers and governments were lying and wrong... what was that? What caused you to doubt?


I went through a stage where I was a little jerk that hated authority and wanted to be special without doing all the hard work too Foos, I'm more that sure you can relate to that. Obviously I grew up...



Im sorry I thought the landings were an achievement by MAN. And that it wasnt about one country doing it or not. Wouldnt you have defended the Russians if they did it first? At any rate, it is important because of the influence NASA and the US has over the entire world due to their claimed technological achievements. A lie on this scale damages world wide. History & science books need to be corrected. Treaties and trade agreements might be revisited. Partnerships destroyed.


Yes it was an achievement by man, but your unrelenting desire to prove it was fake is clearly aimed at destroying the reputation of the US as you have demonstrated so well in your statement. I was merely demonstrating that I don't have an opposite passion to yours in wanting to defend the US, I don't care about their 'reputation'.



Then they wouldn't have been able to see the tracks! Especially from the Rover that often times didnt produce any
The tracks are not wider than rover that made them, or the craft that brought the rover there in the first place! Oh, look we can see the footprints but we cant see the man who made them! LOL.


I'll be honest, I haven't conducted my own analysis of it - on this occasion I did just take it on face value of what the Indian scientist said. The point was that a 3rd party confirmed the Apollo landings and as everyone expected you urinated over the claim after only just saying you would only ever change your mind if there was a 3rd party confirmation.
I posted it so all the readers could see your predictable reaction and you performed on cue as expected.



And what did Buzz tell you? Did he see UFOs? Moon Cities? Vegetation? Stars? You believe any of that?


Nothing that grand and I wouldn't share it with you if you paid me. I wouldn't want to waste your money donating to Jarrah's Moonshot that he claims is impossible yet happily accepts money for .. *cough* fraud.

And as usual you've evaded the question:

Who would you find acceptable as a provider of third party proof that Apollo landed on the Moon? Whose nation's lunar probe's images would be acceptable Foos?

That is a direct question Foos, I and I expect many others expect an answer. It's not complicated Foos..
edit on 24-10-2010 by AgentSmith because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
When we went to the bottom of the Marianas Trench when they hit the bottom they stirred up so much silt even after 30 minutes they had no visibility and came back up seeing really nothing.

When they were running around on the moon kicking up dust and dirt with their boots it all fell back to the moon immediately. You would think in a low gravity environment (1/6th of Earths) the dust and dirt would be floating around for awhile.

In 1969 a Dust Detector instrument was supposedly placed on the moon. It's reels were lost by NASA and never analyzed but the scientist in Australia that was sent the reels from his experiment in 1969, still has his copies NASA sent him. Those reels to date have still not been examined: There is no functioning equipment to review the tapes now
www.physorg.com/news159201494.html

Odd huh?

The theory they are pushing now is that SUN LIGHT is exciting electrons and creating static cling. No sunlight and there is no static cling of matter. That's their story on why the dust on the moon doesn't float around.

The Lunar Rover used 36 volt direct current motors on each of it's wheels. Those motors have magnets in them. When they drove the lunar rover or applied the "brakes" they are generating STRONG magnetic fields which should show the Fe (iron) moon dust sticking to the lunar rover hubs like mad. But that doesn't happen. The high in iron moon dust does not attract to the lunar rovers electric motors/wheel hubs as would be expected. Odd isn't it?

On Apollo 15 when they were hammering a pole into the moon why can we hear the hammer striking the pole? Sound does not travel in a vacuum. Another oddity that can not be explained.

edit on 24-10-2010 by Pervius because: spellin'



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


Oh my gosh!!! You've cracked the "hoax" wide open!!

Oh, wait....no you didn't. Let's correct a few misconceptions:


When they were running around on the moon kicking up dust and dirt with their boots it all fell back to moon immediately. You would think in a low gravity environment (1/6th of Earths) the dust and dirt would be floating around for awhile.


"floating around" HOW?? You compared the deep ocean, and silt, to the VACUUM on the Moon?? Water is a medium to suspend the silt, and affect visibility. On Earth, the AIR is the medium to cause dust to "float".

In fact, you just PROVED that the Lunar EVAs were NOT filmed on Earth!!


I'll research into the Detector you mentioned...but, at first glance, see nothing "odd".



The theory they are pushing now is that SUN LIGHT is exciting electrons and creating static cling. No sunlight and there is no static cling of matter. That's their story on why the dust on the moon doesn't float around.


Yes, to the UV radiation, and its affects on very small dust particles. But, NO! on the "floating around" part, again. It's in the article, link fixed down below on edit.


When they drove the lunar rover or applied the "brakes" they are generating STRONG magnetic fields which should show the Fe (iron) moon dust sticking to the lunar rover hubs like mad...... The high in iron moon dust ....


Huh??? "puz" NOW, the Lunar regolith has a "high" iron content??? Sheesh!

Why not read a factual article....oh, and note that they tiny, tiny amounts of iron only attached themselves to a magnet when placed in DIRECT CONTACT!! They wouldn't "jump" up from the Lunar surface, to attach to the Rover's electric motors....and besides, the windings (wire coils in an electric moter) are deep inside the mechanism, and covered by a housing....which is probably ALUMINUM!! (non-ferrous, as you should no).

science.nasa.gov...


Odd isn't it?


Yes, it is....that so much baloney is "believed" without a critical analysis, which dispels these false assumptions quite quickly. "Jarrah White" (noise) is a perfect example.....


On Apollo 15 when they were hammering a pole into the moon why can we hear the hammer striking the pole? Sound does not travel in a vacuum. Another oddity that can not be explained.


(OH! You DID know about the vacuum?? I direct your attention to the top of this post, now...and explain yourself, please).

AS TO this "hammer sound"....source?

(Oh, and BTW, before wasting too much time....you do understand that sound can be transmitted through MATTER, besides air, correct?)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll fix your link to the Australian scientist story, below. First, there's nothing "odd" at all!!! In fact, it's a good story. Here's a snippet:


.....O'Brien learned from NASA's website that the space agency had misplaced data tapes from its dust-detecting experiments, that he decided to revisit his own set of 173 tapes. NASA had sent him these tapes one by one in 1969 and 1970, when he was working at the Department of Physics at University of Sydney. He took them with him when, in 1971, he moved to Perth for a new job. O'Brien's tapes are now the only known record of data from those vintage experiments.

Working alone and self-funded, the 75-year-old scientist dedicated two years to analyzing paper charts printed out in 1969 and 1970 from the magnetic tapes, which contain 6 million measurements, most of them yet to be analyzed.

For future Moon and Mars missions, O'Brien offers a practical solution to the dust hazard: Use a wide sun-proof shed, to block the rays that enhance dust's adhesive forces.


(my bolding on the last two sentences).

www.physorg.com...

You wrote:


Those reels to date have still not been examined: There is no functioning equipment to review the tapes now .


Yet, the article I posted above says differently....paper records were available, for analysis. Tapes, and tape readers, weren't necessary to study the data.


edit on 24 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: Link



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


I think you have completely misunderstood this article. It has been known for quite some time that lunar dust gets electrically charged by sunlight. O'Brien has used indirect measurements to deduce that the intensity of the charge correlates with the angle of incidence. The "missing tape" issue is instructive because the article clearly states that the data was used to plot paper charts at the time. Once the data was in "hard copy" format, the original tapes were unnecessary. Lunar dust has a relatively low iron content (~15%), the effect is electrostatic, not electromagnetic so the magnets in the motors are irrelevant.

The lunar surface is a vacuum, the Marianas trench is under water. There is nothing to support lunar dust but weak electrostatic charges.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Pervius
 

Lunar dust has a relatively low iron content (~15%), the effect is electrostatic, not electromagnetic so the magnets in the motors are irrelevant.


That's a high iron content. The astronauts were requesting wisk brooms with magnets on them to remove the dust priot to getting into their capsule on future landings. After they got into their capsules and the sunlight wasn't hitting the moon dust it released from their space suits and was floating around...BADLY! If it wasn't for the air filtration system sucking up the dust in their capsules they may have no survived the return trip back to Earth. They got lucky the filtration system didn't get fully plugged from the dust.

Fe-0 is magnetic.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Why not read a factual article....oh, and note that they tiny, tiny amounts of iron only attached themselves to a magnet when placed in DIRECT CONTACT!! They wouldn't "jump" up from the Lunar surface, to attach to the Rover's electric motors....and besides, the windings (wire coils in an electric moter) are deep inside the mechanism, and covered by a housing....which is probably ALUMINUM!! (non-ferrous, as you should no).



edit on 24 October 2010 by weedwhacker because: Link



Direct Current electric motors have magnets in them. Using a Direct Current motor to "brake" generates one heck of a magnetic field. Go get a high end (not kmart) remote control car with braking capabilty via the speed control and test the theory. You will find the Direct Current motor will attract iron dust very well.

The Lunar Rover Direct Current motor had a steel shaft and a steel nut going to the wheel. This should have been magnetized during operation and attracted Fe-0 on the lunar surface.



posted on Oct, 24 2010 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


Someone gave you a star??? Oh, dear.... :shk:

You understand something, I hope, right here:


After they got into their capsules and the sunlight wasn't hitting the moon dust it released from their space suits and was floating around...


It was "floating around" after they were back in the spacecraft because.....?

Yup!! They re-pressurized, each time, after every EVA! So, air....and, yes....in an atmosphere, you can stir up dust. Also, can be a problem in zero-G (worse, in some ways). In fact, there was an incident on Apollo 15, I believe it was, when they broke something made of glass, while coasting enroute to the Moon. It was in the LM, and they had to take great pains to find all the shards, as they of course float around the cabin, in zero-G.


My visit to the NASM, I mentioned earlier, pointed out the problem that exists with many, many "average" people who, although intelligent, can have some weird misconceptions about the space program details.

Was looking at one display, they had a LM cockpit mock-up, with TV screens to simulate the view out the windows, and the audio soundtrack synced to the actual Apollo 17 descent and landing, starting from about 6,000 feet above the surface. I was helping to explain to my friend, interpreting the audio and describing what they meant, for context. A woman asked (since she saw that I knew a bit) about one of the labels the museum had placed next to the controls....it was denoting the 'ATTITUDE' hand controller. She asked if that was a "mistake", and if it should have read "altitude".

I told her the joystick controller was for pitch, roll and yaw (which confused her, didn't know what those are). I pointed out the THRUST controller, to the left side (held by the pilot's left hand, while they use the right for the attitude) and told her that altitude was controlled with that. Not sure if she understood, completely. Oh, well.....




top topics



 
377
<< 227  228  229    231  232  233 >>

log in

join