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

@Intrepid,

Intrepid wrote:

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.

I didn't say that you or O'Bill are unable to understand it, just that he doesn't understand it yet.

If he's honestly looking for answers to his doubts, then I'm willing to discuss the physics with him.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

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?

Gee Parados; do you see rock or dust on the foot of the craft? Do you see human footprint right next to the foot? Do you see the shadow right under the Lander foot? Are you trying to be a dick?

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

If he's honestly looking for answers to his doubts, then I'm willing to discuss the physics with him.

You give they hoax crazies any credit for being seekers of truth in any way or in any manner?

They are the brothers and fathers and son of the same type of people who question the holocaust and other proven beyond question events in the history of mankind.

Trying their very best to rewrite history to match what they would prefer to be true not what is true.

In that regards please take note of the dodging my question about the surveyors landing pads.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
If he's honestly looking for answers to his doubts, then I'm willing to discuss the physics with him.

You give they hoax crazies any credit for being seekers of truth in any way or in any manner?

They are the brothers and fathers and son of the same type of people who question the holocaust and other proven beyond question events in the history of mankind.

Trying their very best to rewrite history to match what they would prefer to be true not what is true.

This is the biggest load of bullshit that I have read yet.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

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?

<snicker>

Where do you see that indentation? That was my point on my opening post, btw. You guys are all over the place, desperately trying to fill in gaps with guesswork. First it doesn't blow, then it blows (but magically doesn't collect on the foot of the craft.) Need men to place the reflector, even though the Russian's didn't. Questioning why something would bounce up in a vacuum has to be the silliest question yet. Do you think you could dribble a basketball?

2 Replies

@Intrepid,

Quote:

This is the biggest load of bullshit that I have read yet.

Yet you are still dodging my question concerning the Surveyors landing pads.

Seeker after truth you are clearly not.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

I see human footprint in dust not under the lander. I also can't tell if there is dust directly under the engine nozzle. If I look at the color I see it is slightly different directly under the nozzle which could point to no dust there. I am not being a dick. I am pointing out your photo doesn't show anything you claim it does. You can't tell me how thick the dust is anywhere in that photo since the dust is about the same color as the rocky surface.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Gee Parados; do you see rock or dust on the foot of the craft? Do you see human footprint right next to the foot? Do you see the shadow right under the Lander foot? Are you trying to be a dick?

Gee, do you think the landing gear might be wider than the astronauts' boots, resulting in a larger surface area? Did you consider the idea that the lunar surface is not uniform? Did you consider the possibility that there might be, I don't know, a freakin' rock that it's sitting on? Did you consider that only the very top layer of lunar regolith is powdery, and that underneath that it's very firm?

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Where do you see that indentation? That was my point on my opening post, btw.

You can't see the indentation, because the foot of the craft is still there. That's my point. Go out to your yard. Clear a space so there's just dirt there. Set a plate down on the ground and look at it. Do you see an indentation? Or do you only see an indentation once you pick up the frickin' plate?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

First it doesn't blow, then it blows (but magically doesn't collect on the foot of the craft.)

No magic needed. Vacuum needed. Rocket exhaust needed. No magic needed.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Need men to place the reflector, even though the Russian's didn't.

Nobody has argued that a reflector requires human placement, so I'm not sure where you're getting that.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Questioning why something would bounce up in a vacuum has to be the silliest question yet.

Try answering the question.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Do you think you could dribble a basketball?

Are you in the habit of dribbling sand? That's (nearly) the most ridiculous comparison I've ever heard.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

You give they hoax crazies any credit for being seekers of truth in any way or in any manner?

I hold out the possibility that someone who may have been mislead by people who propagate the idea of a hoax might actually be seeking the truth, yes.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

I hold out the possibility that someone who may have been mislead by people who propagate the idea of a hoax might actually be seeking the truth, yes.

The hoaxer supporters here is not such people at least in my opinion.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

I see human footprint in dust not under the lander. I also can't tell if there is dust directly under the engine nozzle. If I look at the color I see it is slightly different directly under the nozzle which could point to no dust there. I am not being a dick. I am pointing out your photo doesn't show anything you claim it does. You can't tell me how thick the dust is anywhere in that photo since the dust is about the same color as the rocky surface.

I don't claim the photo shows the things you're claiming. I claim that it does NOT show any sign that material was blown out from beneath the nozzle as would be expected. The video clearly shows the nozzle blowing dust around at landing... but the photos do not evidence that this took place. The photo does show dust deep enough for multiple foot prints right next to the Lander's foot, but not a spec of dust on it. This anomaly is easy enough to spot, without defining where you're supposing the rock ends and the dust layers begin.

I take issue with your deliberate side-stepping these repeated points by asking for specific knowledge I couldn't have and claiming I claimed otherwise.

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Where do you see that indentation? That was my point on my opening post, btw. You guys are all over the place, desperately trying to fill in gaps with guesswork. First it doesn't blow, then it blows (but magically doesn't collect on the foot of the craft.) Need men to place the reflector, even though the Russian's didn't. Questioning why something would bounce up in a vacuum has to be the silliest question yet. Do you think you could dribble a basketball?

Why would you see an indentation? Put talc powder evenly on a plate. Blow gently through a straw in the middle of the plate. There will be NO indentation. There will just be an area with no powder that slowly moves out to an area with powder. This isn't an impact point Bill so there is no reason for their to be a crater in the dust. Since the dust on the moon is all made up of pulverized surface from impacts the dust is the same color as the surface, it would be impossible to tell what is hard surface and what is dust from a picture.

We don't need men to place reflectors but without it, you are guessing as to the exact location of that reflector as was pointed out with the Russian detectors. It took years to find them to be able to bounce light off them.

In order for something to bounce it has to go up first. What Drew is pointing out is that the exhaust hits the surface and moves outward. It doesn't blow much if any dust up in the air. Any dust that is blown up would move in an arc and probably not fall in a manner capable of hitting the landing pads which aren't on the ground yet.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

I don't claim the photo shows the things you're claiming. I claim that it does NOT show any sign that material was blown out from beneath the nozzle as would be expected.

You haven't dealt much with fine dust, have you Bill? You are claiming it isn't like YOU would expect which has nothing to do with how dust actually acts when blown from a single source.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

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.

Despite your snickering; this is absurd. What do you suppose would be the reaction to a particle blowing sideways striking another particle or even blowing up a hill? The idea that nothing would blow upwards beyond lateral is idiotic; and no amount of your post-chopping bluster will change this simple truth. Vacuum Not Equal

Magical place where actions can't have reactions that include upward movement. That's just silly.

1 Reply

I admire those who confront these issues with a certain patients. You confront these individuals who see conspiracies in the most mundane of events and return again and again to the same damned questions. Please be logical and understand any conspiracy that requires thousands or even hundreds of willing collaborators would have been openly admitted by just one or even a dozen by now...dont you think?

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

You haven't dealt much with fine dust, have you Bill? You are claiming it isn't like YOU would expect which has nothing to do with how dust actually acts when blown from a single source.

Not to comment that we are dealing with a very hard vacuum here and once the gas leave the rocket engine it will spread very rapidly indeed and no matter how fine the dust is it will drop in the same manner as a hammer would and it is not going to be floating around.

0 Replies

@xris,

Quote:

Please be logical and understand any conspiracy that requires thousands or even hundreds of willing collaborators would have been openly admitted by just one or even a dozen by now...dont you think?

They are not either rational or logical as anyone who look at the task it would be to even try to fake such a large undertaking would reject this nonsense on it face.

The killing of 6 millions people in death camps are also somehow supposed to had been fake and we have heads of governments giving this nonsense credit to this day.

They are crazies and we are playing with them here.

At least the moon landing hoax nuts are not morally as sicking as the Holocaust deniers however both groups are similar in others ways.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Theyre just having fun with you Bill. Jezuz, lighten up! Its too fuckin hot to squabble.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
I don't claim the photo shows the things you're claiming. I claim that it does NOT show any sign that material was blown out from beneath the nozzle as would be expected.

You haven't dealt much with fine dust, have you Bill? You are claiming it isn't like YOU would expect which has nothing to do with how dust actually acts when blown from a single source.

Please try to understand what I'm saying, rather than what you and DrewDad wish I was saying. The fragged debris that makes up the moon's surface comes in different shapes and sizes. Blowing down on it will make it scatter laterally in all directions, yes... but it would also cause a multitude of collisions, whose reactions in turn would send it in virtually every direction. How can this not be obvious to everyone?

3 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know