Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

page: 52
105
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 

More simple.
Dust was still settling for 5 seconds after engine shutdown.


The dust settled virtually the instant the engine shut off because there is no atmosphere to support the dust particles.




posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 

Instantly? Maybe if it wasn't raised more than an inch from the surface.

CHALLENGER Boy, when you said shut down, I shut down and we dropped, didn't we?
CHALLENGER Yes, sir, but we is here, man is we here. How does that look?

www.jsc.nasa.gov...



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


On the contrary.


This troublesome material is every-where on the Moon's surface. The powdery grit gets into everything, jamming seals and abrading spacesuit fabric. It also readily picks up an electrostatic charge. This characteristic causes it to float or levitate off the lunar surface and stick to faceplates and camera lenses. The fine dust might even be toxic.

www.space.com...

www.huffingtonpost.com...



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


On the contrary.


This troublesome material is every-where on the Moon's surface. The powdery grit gets into everything, jamming seals and abrading spacesuit fabric. It also readily picks up an electrostatic charge. This characteristic causes it to float or levitate off the lunar surface and stick to faceplates and camera lenses. The fine dust might even be toxic.

www.space.com...

www.huffingtonpost.com...


Yet it doesn't seem to stick to the Gold foil on the landers legs...Hmmm.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 

The lofted dust would have been blown away from beneath the LM.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB


Yet it doesn't seem to stick to the Gold foil on the landers legs...Hmmm.


Are you now trying to say that gold, one of the best conductors known to man, would hold a static charge? The reason the lunar dust stuck to the space suits is because they were insulators. Static is a build up of electrical charge that becomes trapped in an insulator (think of a wool sweater, horrible conductor, but a great static generator) gold wouldn't hold a static charge because electrons flow through it not build up on its surface.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
Simple, dust was still being blown away by the still running rocket plume until 3:27!...


So, first you say that the lack of pictures of lunar soil on the landing pads is proof of a hoax, when shown pictures of landing pads with lunar soil on them, you claim that lunar soil on the landing pads is proof of a hoax. You then claim that the engines were running for five seconds after touchdown, when proven wrong by your own evidence, you now switch your claim to say that the engines were running for five seconds after they were said to have been shut down in your previously posted video. I honestly don't even know what point your trying to prove any more as your position seems to change with every post you make.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB


Yet it doesn't seem to stick to the Gold foil on the landers legs...Hmmm.


Are you now trying to say that gold, one of the best conductors known to man, would hold a static charge?


Yes. If metals couldn't hold a static charge it would make the operation of a Van Der Graff generator impossible!



The reason the lunar dust stuck to the space suits is because they were insulators. Static is a build up of electrical charge that becomes trapped in an insulator (think of a wool sweater, horrible conductor, but a great static generator) gold wouldn't hold a static charge because electrons flow through it not build up on its surface.


Wrong, as I have just shown above.
edit on 1/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 




If metals couldn't hold a static charge it would make the operation of a Van Der Graff generator impossible!

But if the globe of a VDG generator were grounded it wouldn't work very well, would it?



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


And a van de graaff generator achieves this charge using a belt made from an insulator. How would the metallic foot pads generate this charge?



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB
Simple, dust was still being blown away by the still running rocket plume until 3:27!...


So, first you say that the lack of pictures of lunar soil on the landing pads is proof of a hoax, when shown pictures of landing pads with lunar soil on them, you claim that lunar soil on the landing pads is proof of a hoax. You then claim that the engines were running for five seconds after touchdown, when proven wrong by your own evidence, you now switch your claim to say that the engines were running for five seconds after they were said to have been shut down in your previously posted video. I honestly don't even know what point your trying to prove any more as your position seems to change with every post you make.


The evidence is clear to see in the footage...I have proved that the engine was clearly still running for a further 5 seconds AFTER the landing pads touched down!...Thats about 10 seconds after the probes would have activated the contact light on the control panel in front of the Astronauts!!



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


I have proved that the engine was clearly still running for a further 5 seconds AFTER the landing pads touched down!

No.
You have not. But if you did prove that, where do you think they were landing if not on the Moon?

edit on 2/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


And a van de graaff generator achieves this charge using a belt made from an insulator. How would the metallic foot pads generate this charge?


They dont! Do some research!
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


I have proved that the engine was clearly still running for a further 5 seconds AFTER the landing pads touched down!

No.
You have not. But if you did prove that, where do you think they were landing if not on the Moon?

edit on 2/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


A studio set right down here on Earth.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


A simple Van de Graaff-generator consists of a belt of silk, or a similar flexible dielectric material,

en.wikipedia.org...

Do you know what dielectric means?



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


A simple Van de Graaff-generator consists of a belt of silk, or a similar flexible dielectric material,

en.wikipedia.org...

Do you know what dielectric means?


Yes, so what? Captainpudding said that metals cannot hold a static charge...He was obviously wrong.
edit on 1/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
You apparently didn't read what he said. You are obviously wrong.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


A studio set right down here on Earth.

Really? A studio, the entire landing sequence was done in a studio? Ok.
Then why, if the engine was shut down 5 seconds after touchdown, doesn't the dust billow after the engine is shut down? Didn't you claim earlier that it should have settled instantly because of lack of atmosphere? You seem to be sort of confusing yourself.
edit on 2/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


A simple Van de Graaff-generator consists of a belt of silk, or a similar flexible dielectric material,

en.wikipedia.org...

Do you know what dielectric means?


Yes, so what? Captainpudding said that metals cannot hold a static charge...He was obviously wrong.
edit on 1/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)


the metal foil can not hold a charge for 2 reasons:

1) it conducts electricity very, very well.
2) touching the surface of the moon, it becomes grounded. It can not hold a charge at that point, unless the bottom of the metal pads are insulated.

the top metal sphere on a Van de Graaff generator is not grounded, but is isolated from ground. A grounding probe that IS either attached to ground, or the negative side of the generator will provide a path for the positive charge on the insulated top metal sphere, once brought close enough.

The moment the LEM touched the lunar surface, any static build up on that outer metal would have discharged almost instantly.

The ionized dust would not want to "stick" or cling to it very well because it no longer had a charge.

A helicopter headed out to a ship at sea. When it gets there, we had to discharge the static build up before anyone could touch anything being lowered down from the helicopter during VertReps. We used a metal hook, clamped to the metal deck of the ship, with an insulated handle.
The bolt of discharge could be quite blinding at times.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


And a van de graaff generator achieves this charge using a belt made from an insulator. How would the metallic foot pads generate this charge?


They dont! Do some research!
en.wikipedia.org...


Ok, can someone please confirm this so I know I haven't had a mental break but has the professor once again made a claim and then linked to evidence which contradicts his claim?? I'll also concede that I should have clarified my original statement that grounded conductors can't hold a static charge . . . actually grounded anything can't hold a static charge, a static charge is formed by the space suits because they're insulators and can't go to ground very efficiently. To go back to my wool sweater analogy it's why you get a shock when you touch a grounded conductor. If memory serves all static is, is a buildup of electrons that can't go to ground so when a path becomes available you get a discharge.





new topics
 
105
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join



 
$('#skin').click(function(){ window.location.href = "http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1008463/pg1"; });