Did Man Set Foot On The Moon In The 60s, 70,s Or Ever?

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Why would dust flying be an issue?

Dust sticks to bottom of boot. Astronaut lifts boot. Dust detaches from boot.

Have you ever ran at the beach?

Have you read the arguments re: the vacuum in space. Reasons for no dust on the pads etc. etc. It can't be both ways.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

I would like to remind all of you that when the astronauts landed on the moon, the engine they used was on the lower half of the LEM.

When they left the moon, the LEM actually separated, and half of it stayed on the moon.
They arrived in a station wagon and left in a VW bug.
Less weight means less thrust needed for liftoff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAqx8WPpLOA

Who took the video and panned the camera?

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

Looks automated to me.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Makes one wonder about the power source and the means to beam back to earth.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Watch from 4:05.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Quote:

They arrived in a station wagon and left in a VW bug.
Less weight means less thrust needed for liftoff.

Lord I cover that in details yes the mass was less HOWEVER on takeoff you was trying to burn your fuel as near to the moon surface as possible with max possible thrust and on landing you was balancing the moon gravity force only not trying to leave the moon!

Not the same conditions at all.

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

Makes one wonder about the power source and the means to beam back to earth.

Even in 1969 they were aware of a technology called "batteries". They also knew about things called "radio" and "antennae" and "solar power".

0 Replies

@Intrepid,

Quote:

Reasons for no dust on the pads etc. etc. It can't be both ways

Strange is it not that if you do not think or claim that the surveyors landers was fake you will not reply to my simple question is if there are pictures of their pads on the moon with no dust on the surveyors pads then your question about the lack of dust on the LMs pads is or is not at an end?

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

It's not even a case of sticking to the bottom of the boot. Simply take some talc powder put it on the ground and then step on it. It will fly all over the place and no need for a atmosphere for that to happen.

Right... but pointing a rocket engine at it from just inches away will barely budge it.

I wish some more of you thinkers would actually approach this as a question, rather than scramble to assert anything that matches your preconceived conclusion.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0XX7Bv_nYY[/youtube]
Watch from 4:05.

Here we see dust being cleared out as you'd expect; but why does the picture reflect no such thing?

2 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Right... but pointing a rocket engine at it from just inches away will barely budge it.

Did you watch the video of the landing?

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

It doesn't? Where is the dust under the lander? How thick is it? How did you make your measurement?

1 Reply

Do you guys work? Laughing

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

It doesn't? Where is the dust under the lander? How thick is it? How did you make your measurement?

Why was none blown onto the foot of the Lander? Why did it stop clearing right where the footprints begin? Can you stop working backwards from your preconceived conclusion for once in your life?

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Here we see dust being cleared out as you'd expect; but why does the picture reflect no such thing?

Because you don't understand what you're looking at.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Of course. That MUST be it. Only those who submit the info know what they are looking at. Maybe that is why it is not so obvious to others.

Rolling Eyes

2 Replies

@Intrepid,

Which part of the picture is dust and which is rock? How can you and Occum Bill tell? Since it is YOUR argument that is based on being able to tell why should we have to justify what is visible? Isn't it your job?

2 Replies

@parados,

Because it is you guys who are providing the visual "evidence"?

1 Reply

@Intrepid,

No - Bill did.

http://able2know.org/topic/153739-13#post-4271819

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Why was none blown onto the foot of the Lander?

What would make dust in a vacuum go upward? The rocket shoots down. The rocket exhaust hits the ground. Everything then moves laterally. Nothing blows upward.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Why did it stop clearing right where the footprints begin?

How do you know that it does? Do you have evidence that they stepped closer to the lander?

And try the talcum experiment. Get a plate and put a layer of talcum powder down. Then blow (gently!) straight down at the center of the plate. You will create an indention in the center, with dust all around.

Better yet, take a straw to where there's some dry sand, and try the same thing.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Can you stop working backwards from your preconceived conclusion for once in your life?

1 Reply

Did Man Set Foot On The Moon In The 60s, 70,s Or Ever?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know