Did NASA just admit they never put Man on The Moon? [Video]

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: FoosM

does the moon have a thick enough atmosphere to cause dust particles to linger or billow??

you like to avoid answering questions.. almost like you dont know the answer or you choose to ignore the answer because its against your beliefs..

We have not avoided these questions, but rather we have proved you wrong with NASA's own video; in the video below you can see that the moon dust does not conform to you theories and goes everywhere like one would expect, thusly there should have been moon dust on the landers feet too.

-MM

so now you want to claim that every single physicist/scientists around the world saw nothing wrong with the lift off knowing full well that it was supposed to have occurred in a near vacuum?
only you and a few hoax believers that know very little of physics are the only ones who noticed the oddity of the dust behaviour during lift-off???

also im not claiming the dust would not be blown away, im claiming the dust will NOT billow or linger like it would on earth.. im also claiming that it will not create a gigantic blast crater as you believe..
do you know what an atmosphere does to dust particles??
does the moon have a thick enough atmosphere to affect the lunar dust particles??

importantly please explain why NASA would show the world multiple close up high definition images of the footpads without layers of dust in them?? also do you believe you are smarter than every single scientist and physicist around the world??

originally posted by: choos

so now you want to claim that every single physicist/scientists around the world saw nothing wrong with the lift off knowing full well that it was supposed to have occurred in a near vacuum?

Get over yourself; you my friend is not the spokesperson for "every scientist in the world", and the idea of anyone proposing to know what every other scientist in the entire world do or do not know is preposterous beyond belief.

originally posted by: choos
do you know what an atmosphere does to dust particles??

Unlike most of the posters (perhaps even you) here on ATS I've actually done some investigative math’s related to moon dust dynamics after your initial claim of "parabolic trajectories"; and to my surprise my formulas showed that positively charged microscopic dust particles (i.e. "moon dust") in a near vacuum acts more like a fluid than solid particles when kicked up, and I had to use fluid dynamics to get the results that my formulas was projecting. In addition, there should be quite dramatic & visible electrical discharges when positively charged microdust was kicked up in an vacuum environment void from any moisture - if this is correct then one must ask why electrical discharges are not visible in any footage from the moon missions.

originally posted by: choos
importantly please explain why NASA would show the world multiple close up high definition images of the footpads without layers of dust in them??

Part of their EVA was to take photos of the Lunar Module after landing to ensure that there were no damage etc.

originally posted by: choos
also do you believe you are smarter than every single scientist and physicist around the world??

You tell me since you claim to know every scientist in the world.

-MM

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

Get over yourself; you my friend is not the spokesperson for "every scientist in the world", and the idea of anyone proposing to know what every other scientist in the entire world do or do not know is preposterous beyond belief.

i dont need to.. but what do you think their silence means??

Unlike most of the posters (perhaps even you) here on ATS I've actually done some investigative math’s related to moon dust dynamics after your initial claim of "parabolic trajectories"; and to my surprise my formulas showed that positively charged microscopic dust particles (i.e. "moon dust") in a near vacuum acts more like a fluid than solid particles when kicked up, and I had to use fluid dynamics to get the results that my formulas was projecting. In addition, there should be quite dramatic & visible electrical discharges when positively charged microdust was kicked up in an vacuum environment void from any moisture - if this is correct then one must ask why electrical discharges are not visible in any footage from the moon missions.

show us these maths please i must have missed it..
given how you cant follow the maths from this page:
www.braeunig.us...

this is going to interesting..

and to my surprise my formulas showed that positively charged microscopic dust particles (i.e. "moon dust") in a near vacuum acts more like a fluid than solid particles when kicked up, and I had to use fluid dynamics to get the results that my formulas was projecting.

if you used fluid dynamics (BS because fluid dynamics is way too complicated for you) you would have found that the dust billows or lingers..

so im guessing by this statement that you believe the dust on the moon was billowing and lingered?? so we should see some of the dust swirling?? as per your calculations..

Part of their EVA was to take photos of the Lunar Module after landing to ensure that there were no damage etc.

that is only neccessary if they really landed on the moon..

im asking why NASA chose to take multiple high definition images of the footpads THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE LAYERS OF VISIBLE DUST IN THEM as per your claim..

You tell me since you claim to know every scientist in the world.

as above i dont need to know them all.. as i understand there is a world wide silence on this.. the claim that there is no dust on the footpads is a common hoax theory, scientists around the world would have seen these images of the footpads yet no one suspects anything..

so either they have no issue with it or they dont know as much about physics as you do..

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

You must have done math using fluid dynamics in an earth environment (I doubt you did though, I'd like to check your formulas if you did).

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

So a kitchen sink on earth is an acceptable laboratory for moon experiments? Or were you just demonstrating Newtons 3rd law which is in absolute agreement with the current understanding of moon landings and their effects on dust/regolith?

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: FoosM

does the moon have a thick enough atmosphere to cause dust particles to linger or billow??

you like to avoid answering questions.. almost like you dont know the answer or you choose to ignore the answer because its against your beliefs..

We have not avoided these questions, but rather we have proved you wrong with NASA's own video; in the video below you can see that the moon dust does not conform to you theories and goes everywhere like one would expect, thusly there should have been moon dust on the landers feet too.

-MM

Not to forget that the upper stage's exhaust didnt even make contact with the ground
And supposedly the the Surveyor was damaged due to the soil being kicked up but foil on the
lander's legs were pristine

a reply to: FoosM

and in your infinite wisdom you cant work out why NASA would screw up so badly..

why would NASA make the mistake of taking several close up high definition images of the footpads without dust as you claim and publish it to the public??

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: FoosM

and in your infinite wisdom you cant work out why NASA would screw up so badly..

why would NASA make the mistake of taking several close up high definition images of the footpads without dust as you claim and publish it to the public??

Why would they even make the mistake of faking a moon-landing in the first place?
Maybe because they know that the majority of the people on this Earth tend to be very gullible.
And even in the face of evidence, there will be die-hard fanatical people willing to stake their reputation and lives
defending their beliefs and world-view no matter how wrong it is.

A sucker is born every minute... would you say outright believed man went to the moon when you first heard about it, or where you skeptical at first?

But to further answer your question, from the viewpoint of the engineers and scientists at NASA, they probably thought it
was good to have photos of the LM for research purposes. I even think that was even stated.
But there were photos of the footpads with dust on a later mission too.
And you can see the dust just sticking to the foil.

And then you wonder why, the blast of the engine didnt get rid of the top layer of dirt like Apollo 11, etc.
Hmmm...

a reply to: FoosM

Because unlike Apollo 11, the other missions shut the engine down just before landing.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FoosM

Because unlike Apollo 11, the other missions shut the engine down just before landing.

The minimum throttleable thrust was 1,050 pounds (476.7 kg] for the Lunar Module decent propultion system, so the engine would still have to be running at least at 17% of maximum efficiency at lunar touchdown.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

The engine was at 0% thrust at touch down for every mission after 11.

And thrust rating is not the same as thrust. The bell on the landing engine was wide which means the actual thrust was low because the exhaust expanded as it exited the bell.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

The engine was at 0% thrust at touch down for every mission after 11.

And thrust rating is not the same as thrust. The bell on the landing engine was wide which means the actual thrust was low because the exhaust expanded as it exited the bell.

The only way to get 0% thrust would be to turn off the rocket engine before touchdown, this since 0% throttle does not mean 0% rocket engine efficiency. According to page 62 in the Apollo 12 Press Kit the minimum throttle of the Lunar Module Decent engine was 1,050 pounds (476.7 kg):

Descent Propulsion System -- Maximum rated thrust of the
descent engine is 9,870 pounds (4,380.9 kg) and is throttleable
between 1,050 pounds (476.7 kg) and 6,300 pounds (2,860.2 kg).

This means that at 0% throttle the rocket engine would still deliver a 1,050 pounds (476.7 kg) thrust.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

No it doesn't. Read the transcripts. They clearly state "engine off" prior to touch down. The astronauts shut the engine down completely prior to landing. There was no thrust to kick up dust as they landed.

And you really need to learn how the exhaust nozzle affects thrust.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

No it doesn't. Read the transcripts. They clearly state "engine off" prior to touch down. The astronauts shut the engine down completely prior to landing. There was no thrust to kick up dust as they landed.

And you really need to learn how the exhaust nozzle affects thrust.

That is not correct in case of Apollo 12 at least, there the engine was turned off after they landed which is documented in the page 89 of the Apollo 12 LM Mission Transcript:

04 14 31 52 LMP 80 feet - 80 feet, coming down at 4; you're looking
good. 70 feet. Looking real good. 63 feet,
60, coming down at 3. 50 feet, coming down. Watch
for the dust.
04 14 32 07 CDR 46, 42 feet, coming down at 3.
04 14 32 08 LMP Yes.
04 14 32 11 CC Low level.
04 14 32 12 LMP Coming down at 2, okay. Start the clock. 42 feet,
coming down at 2. 40, coming down at 2. Looking
good; watch the dust. 31, 32, 30 feet, coming down
at 2, Pete; you've got plenty of gas, plenty of
gas, babe. Stay in there.
04 14 32 27 LMP 18 feet, coming down at 2. You've got it made.
Come on in there. 24 feet.
04 14 32 33 LMP CONTACT LIGHT. (This means they had landed)
04 14 32 34 LMP It's on.
04 14 32 36 CC Roger.
04 14 32 37 LMP PRO.
04 14 32 38 CDR Yes_ PRO.
04 14 32 40 LMP ENGINE ARM, OFF. Okay. (This means they turned off the rocket engine)

It is also quite visible that the rocket engine is on during landing in the official NASA video of the alledged Apollo 12 moon landing at about 4:25:



You can clearly see the moon dust is being jettisoned until the landing is completed and the "Contact Light" message is called out.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

The contact light was lit when the landing probe touched the surface and was when the engine was shut off. Not when they landed.

It blew some dust but not as much as 11 did. Apollo 11 didn't shut down until the pads were on the ground.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

The contact light was lit when the landing probe touched the surface and was when the engine was shut off. Not when they landed.

It blew some dust but not as much as 11 did. Apollo 11 didn't shut down until the pads were on the ground.

It is also quite visible that the rocket engine is on during landing in the official NASA video of the alledged Apollo 12 moon landing at about 4:25. You can clearly see the moon dust is being jettisoned by the rocket engine until the alledged moon landing has completed and the lander is sitting on the ground. You can also hear the call "LMP ENGINE ARM, OFF. Okay." after the lander has obviously landed according to the footage:



-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

And it's not nearly as much as 11, which didn't shut down until they were heavy on the pads.. You can repeat it but that doesn't change that the contact light was not when landing was complete.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

And it's not nearly as much as 11, which didn't shut down until they were heavy on the pads.. You can repeat it but that doesn't change that the contact light was not when landing was complete.

So now you agree that the engine was turned on at touchdown? You can also hear the call "LMP ENGINE ARM, OFF. Okay." after the lander has obviously landed according to the footage at 4:44 , which means the engine was not turned off until after touchdown which from the footage seems to have been about 8 seconds as the touchdown is at about 4:36:



This means that the engine was delivering at least 1,000 lbs of thrust for perhaps as much as 8 seconds after touchdown.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

The engine was on when the landing probe touched the surface, which is what I said from the start. The contact probes extended below the pads. Once they touched the crew cut thrust, and once on the surface they safed the engine.

Read Apollo 15. They shut down prior to the probe touching and landed hard.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

The engine was on when the landing probe touched the surface, which is what I said from the start. The contact probes extended below the pads. Once they touched the crew cut thrust, and once on the surface they safed the engine.

So you continue to claim while both the Apollo 12 mission transcript and the NASA video evidence stacks against you.

-MM