The Dust Free Sand Strawman Claim

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Betamax101, Feb 8, 2016.

  1. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
  2. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Check out this video at the 5:03 time mark.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkdOMdIYxlI
    MoonFaker: Footprints On The Moon Set, Ralph René Was Correct! PART 2


    You're not making any distinction between the level of sharpness in the two picures. I'm saying that the prints you provide are too far away to be able to see whether the sharpness is at the level of the print on the right. They may be like the one on the left; the tread is visible in your frames but we can't see how sharp the edges are.


    This is all moot anyway for the reasons I pointed out in post #14.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=443515&page=2&p=1065841552#post1065841552
     
  3. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Apparently the picture above is not sharp enough to see the tread patterns!

    Are you claiming that tread patterns and clear prints are possible on dry fine sand? Sand just like the sand used in Jarrah White's boot print failure video?

    You are like the Black Knight and your failure to admit the clear evidence would get you banned from entry into the basic debating hall. Is this what you call truth seeking?
     
  4. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You're either being deliberately obtuse about the point I made in my last post, or you missed the point entirely. Go back and read it again and get back to me.
     
  5. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    [​IMG]

    CAN YOU SEE THE PRINTS?

    Apparently the picture above is not sharp enough to see the tread patterns!

    Are you claiming that tread patterns and clear prints are possible on dry fine sand? Sand just like the sand used in Jarrah White's boot print failure video?

    You are like the Black Knight and your failure to admit the clear evidence would get you banned from entry into the basic debating hall. Is this what you call truth seeking?

    To further augment the visible evidence, the Apollo prints actually reflect lights as they flatten out, a result of the fine volcanic beads and crystalline structures in the regolith.



    Please don't offer guidance on the response of other people when you cowardly refuse to answer simple questions and watch clear contradictions to your useless claims. Get back to me when somebody offers you guidance on being a truther and how to display integrity whilst debating.
     
  6. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I am amazed at how your argument prowess is limited by your bias.

    Effectively you are attempting to use a dull print made in extremely fine dust to disprove more definite prints made on the Moon - fail. You seem to not understand that the point of using fine grain "washed" sand in the first place, was to avoid these fine particles that are light enough to suspend in air!

    In the hopelessly sad effort to disprove that boot prints are impossible on the Moon, this joker uses the secondary fine particles(the wrong ones) and stamps into a resistant box, in an atmosphere. Whilst doing this he disproves your mad theory on sand being used. The irony is so lost on you it is beyond funny.
     
  7. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    How do you know that the sand in the picture on the left here...

    MoonFaker: Footprints On The Moon Set, Ralph René Was Correct! PART 2
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkdOMdIYxlI
    (5:03 time mark)

    ...is fine enough to hang in the air when kicked up?


    I'm pressed for time today and I haven't watched this yet.

    Scientific Method Classroom Lesson: Moon Footprint Mythbuster
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A20BLo0gxYY


    I'll have time to watch it tomorrow.


    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=362999&page=2&p=1064028979#post1064028979
     
  8. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You obviously haven't paid any attention to the video. White obtained regolith simulated JSC-1A for his experiment, a material that closely replicates the fine soils found on the Moon. It wasn't the correct one however, he should have used JSC-1AF. AND even that isn't as coarse and jagged as lunar regolith.

    When you get "time" watch the corrupt hoax film makers videos!
     
  9. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    This is the best you can come up with? We have detailed bootprints all over the place in the still photos - but in the videos they are virtually non-existent? (well, except for your sharpened and contrast boosted, distant and angled single print you have found)

    As I have said before, I do not consider the sand issues to be compelling evidence of anything either way. Whether the sand is dry or damp, dusty or clean, blowing or in a parabolic arc, falling at moon/earth speed, etc. - I just think that the grainy videos lend themselves to endless speculation without much substance...

    “A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest." - Paul Simon

    Mr Sandman :)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNUgsbKisp8
     
  10. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Most of the time they are simply too far from the video camera. Simple.

    Why are you even here? You have nothing to say, you don't understand jack and all you are doing is blowing air out your butt. If you haven't got anything constructive to say try to keep your hands away from the keyboard. You've already made yourself look really foolish!
     
  11. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Your rhetoric is only going to sway a few of those viewers who just skim the thread without looking at the actual issues. Anyone who's been reading these threads in depth knows that you're the one who looks foolish.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=362999&page=2&p=1064028979#post1064028979
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=403884&page=2&p=1064900819#post1064900819

    From this page...
    http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/441261-apollo-moon-hoax-film-makers-corrupt-4.html
     
  12. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The sand I referred to is not what Jarrah used in his experiment. You know this. you're trying to muddy the waters to confuse the viewers.

    What I referred to...

    MoonFaker: Footprints On The Moon Set, Ralph René Was Correct! PART 2
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkdOMdIYxlI
    (5:03 time mark)


    What Jarrah used...

    MoonFaker: Footprints On The Moon Set, Ralph René Was Correct! PART 2
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkdOMdIYxlI
    (1:14 time mark)
     
  13. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Muddying the waters? That's what you do best. At the 5:03 mark we see the Mythbusters sand and simulant prints!! White tells us what he used at the start of his stupid video.

    Is the grey lunar simulant I referred to above. I suggest you listen carefully to the beginning of the video because for a person with no credibility you are making yourself look even more foolish. From the video description:-

    "Uploaded on 17 May 2010


    Using 25kilograms of NASA's very own JSC-1A lunar regolith simulant, Jarrah White responds to the claims made by Mythbusters and others that the sharp edges of moon dust particles would be enough to hold distinct depressions. Such as those famous photos of Buzz Aldrin's alleged bootprints on the moon."


    Now let's see a first, Cosmored admitting he was wrong.

    [​IMG]

    CAN YOU SEE THE PRINTS?

    Apparently the picture above is not sharp enough to see the tread patterns!

    Are you claiming that tread patterns and clear prints are possible on dry fine sand? Sand just like the sand used in Jarrah White's boot print failure video?

    You are like the Black Knight and your failure to admit the clear evidence would get you banned from entry into the basic debating hall. Is this what you call truth seeking?

    To further augment the visible evidence, the Apollo prints actually reflect lights as they flatten out, a result of the fine volcanic beads and crystalline structures in the regolith.
     
  14. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
  15. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Translation: I don't want to admit I was wrong so will try to divert attention away from it into an incredibly ignorant claim that disproves itself from the examples I have given!

    To summarise yet again:-

    Apollo footage shows very fine dust being kicked along the floor, distances that are unrealistic on Earth.
    It shows this pretty much in every piece of video where we can see their feet.
    Very often we see prints being made that are well defined and are flat enough to reflect sunshine.
    When close enough, their definition can be clearly seen to show the tread from boots.

    Now to what is obvious:-
    Wet sand cannot behave this way, nor can wet dust or any fine particle. It simply will not scatter un-clumped and at the distances we see.
    Dry sand will not even come close to taking a print.
    Jarrah White used a very fine simulant and was unable to make anything close to the print we see being made!
    His video at 2:49 minutes shows quite clearly the way this dust suspends in air!
    On the one hand it is claimed unwashed sand was used, then when shown to be impossible, it now becomes unwashed very fine dust!


    As can be seen, even fine dust on Earth doesn't take the same prints as Apollo and obviously is now small enough to be able to be suspended in air. The serial forum spammer cannot respond honestly to any of this, whichever way you look at this the visible evidence is not possible to duplicate on Earth.

    Wet sand = clear prints no possibility of fine dust. Dry sand = no prints and visible dust(but not the same distance). There is no middle ground, and there is nothing left for any of these blind mice to do but divert and obfuscate.
     
  16. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    There's no way to tell how fine the kicked up soil is. You're seeing what you want to see. Anybody who watches this video...

    MoonFaker - Project Sandbox
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc
    (4:30 time mark)


    ...and compares kicked up beach sand to the kicked up Apollo soil can see that the behavior of the kicked up Apollo soil would match the kicked up beach sand it the Apollo footage were speeded up a little. They used slow-motion to fake lunar gravity.


    There's no footage where the camera is close enough to see whether the detail is as fine as the picture on the right seen at the 5:03 time mark of this video.

    MoonFaker: Footprints On The Moon Set, Ralph René Was Correct! PART 2
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkdOMdIYxlI


    You keep insisting that the lower picture in post #28...
    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=443515&page=3&p=1065845774#post1065845774


    ...shows that detail but it doesn't. Anybody who looks at it can see that. The detail may only be as good as the detail of the picture on the right at the 5:03 time mark of the above video.


    I think that was his whole point.


    His point is that the footage was made on a sound stage and large-graind dust-free sand was used.


    It wasn't shown to be impossible. He used the lunar simulant so show that he couldn't even make a detailed print with that. You're trying to muddy the waters to confuse the viewers.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=403884&page=2&p=1064900819#post1064900819
     
  17. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Will you STOP posting that idiotic video. Firstly we, and anyone with a brain is "we", can see the very fine dust as it flashes across the surface at distances much further than on Earth and unlike the idiotic video where the mad Jarrah kicks sand on the beach. Next regarding speeding up the footage. MEH!! The digging a trench video sequence encompassing 35 minutes of location continuous video needs to be sped up by a factor of 245% for the soil to fall at freefall speed. I have already done a specimen check to verify this and when I get some time will be putting up a video to show this. Meanwhile, the video is sped up 245% here:-

    [video=youtube;U7-7JgdgJls]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7-7JgdgJls[/video]

    Nobody cares what you think, your avoidance of clear evidence is indicative of the anti-truther mentality.

    You are either ignorant of how those prints were made or are being dishonest. Probably both. The ones taken for the camera were specifically and carefully planted for that very purpose. Casual ones will not be as perfectly formed and the regolith varies from place to place. What we do see is CLEAR tread patterns in the ones we see BEING MADE!

    This is impossible in dry sand and dry lunar simulant. Get it?

    Pathetic! Anyone can see the tread patterns that are impossible with dry sand or dust. Dry fine dust suspends in air!!

    Sharpened and contrast boosted:-

    [​IMG]

    CAN YOU SEE THE PRINTS?

    A uselessly executed demonstration. He stamped , the box has reactive edges that push back on the dirt, the floor is not part of the dynamic soil and also pushes back, it is not in a vacuum it is not the JSC1AF really fine material, it is not lunar regolith.

    As a scientific experiment goes, that sucks so much it is painful!

    A moronic point. Dry sand doesn't take a print, wet sand does. Dry sand allows clear dust to be sprayed, wet sand doesn't. You are cornered, there is simply no way around this.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=443515&p=1065831407#post1065831407

    Explains everything, shows a clear defined print with tread being made and what can EASILY be determined as very fine dust being kicked. You are just incapable of assimilating evidence that contradicts your 10 year old spam antics.
     
  18. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Anyone who takes the time to actually look at the soil being flung can see that you are simply wrong. That could very well be large-grained dust-free sand that's getting flung and kicked. You have an attitude with a wrong argument. Go ahead and rant all you want. You won't take in anyone who looks at what's being discussed.
     
  19. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The appeal to imaginary viewers who never concur with your crap. The soil is really fine and flashes across in an un-Earthly way and distance. Your opinion is biased and dishonest, so dismissed.

    No it could not. Your bullcrap claim ignores boot prints being made.

    I am right in practically every thing I say to you. You are so wrapped up in your idiotic hoax paranoia that nothing, not reason, nor logic, not clear evidence, nothing can get through. That for a person who has the temerity to claim they are a truther is absolutely ridiculous. You are simply trying to scroll my replies off of the page with your obfuscated nonsense.

    Luckily, the bulk of the evidence is in the first post so anyone can see how dishonest you are.
     
  20. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Well, here we go again with the madness. I genuinely wonder what this clown is trying to do. Certainly not looking at things objectively, certainly not honestly and probably not at all.
     
  21. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Sharpened and contrast boosted:-

    [​IMG]

    CAN YOU SEE THE PRINTS?
     
  22. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Prints and fine dust but no suspension, all in the same unbroken 30 minute video. No wonder the serial forum spammer only has evasion and denial. Are there are any viewers watching this who think there are no prints? Only Cosmored/Scott says there aren't!
     
  23. jmotivator

    jmotivator Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2017
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    8

    Who says there isn't dust? I think your problem is you are expecting dust in a vacuum to behave like dust in Earth's atmosphere. Hint: It doesn't.

    Absent an atmosphere fine dust behaves the same as sand grains and stones for the same reason a feather and a bowling ball behave the same in a vacuum:



    Without the resistance of the air, gravity effects all objects the same.

    Well, gravity effects all objects the same anyway, but wind resistance (as a function of mass and surface area) causes objects to behave differently.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2017
  24. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I think you are addressing your response to the wrong person. The issue isn't actually about the very fine dust we see in the lunar footage, but the fact prints are made at the same time. This issue effectively proves the footage was taken on the Moon. I am fully aware of the points you make.
     
    jmotivator likes this.
  25. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Hey Betamax...

    Look at this discussion I had with Jay Windley*
    http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1118.15

    (post #23) Jay says...

    (post #25) I say...

    (post #26) Jay says...
    Do you agree with Jay Windley?



    *
    http://www.clavius.org/about.html
     

Share This Page