The fraudulent claim of air and the Apollo 15 flag.

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Betamax101, Dec 31, 2015.

  1. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Do you agree with this statement on the Clavius pro-Apollo website?:

    Clavius:
    http://www.clavius.org/envrocks.html

    Geologists say lunar rocks aren't any different from the basalts found in earth's oceans. Clearly NASA just recovered seabed basalts and passed them off as lunar rocks.

    It's not true that geologists don't see a major difference between earth seabed basalts and lunar rocks. Lunar rocks are anhydrous -- they contain no water and there is no evidence of the presence of water in their formation. This is not true of seabed basalts. Seabed basalts are simply the earth mineral that most closely resembles lunar rock.


    A good quote from David McGowan:

    So one of the reasons that we know the Moon rocks are real, you see, is because they were blasted with ridiculously high levels of radiation while sitting on the surface of the Moon. And our astronauts, one would assume, would have been blasted with the very same ridiculously high levels of radiation, but since this was NASA’s attempt at a ‘debunking’ article, they apparently would prefer that you don’t spend too much time analyzing what they have to say.

    Isn't it possible that there were a few legitimate moon rocks collected robotically and just these few are the ones we are talking about and the rest are fake?

    Only 19 kilograms of the total Apollo haul were allocated to scientific research at the time. Some rocks were presented as gifts to foreign heads of state or for display in museums and planetariums. Some have mysteriously vanished. Most of the rest remain locked away for future study in NASA’s facility in Houston, Texas.

    Gee, the Apollo rocks were like some found on Earth, who would have guessed?

    Apollo rocks also confirmed that certain meteorites found on Earth, including some found in Africa, Antarctica and Asia, were blasted from the moon.

    It would be nice to have the data from this device - but it seems to be lost :(

    On Apollo 11, 12, 14 and 15, ALSEP included the Dust, Thermal and Radiation Engineering Measurements Package (DTREM), a juice box-sized instrument composed of three solar cells and three thermometers that was designed to study the long-term effects of dust, incoming solar radiation and temperature at the lunar surface. The original magnetic tapes of DTREM data were misplaced at some point, according to the original principal investigator, James Bates.

    Yes, there really was a radiation hazard on the moon:

    the major degradation experienced by one of the solar cells over time and especially during the August 1972 solar particle event, which hit the moon. “Thankfully, no astronauts were on the moon at this time, but it is believed that an event of this magnitude might have presented a severe radiation hazard,” McBride said

    I guess the rock samples were not that important:

    "Bringing samples back from the moon wasn't the point of the mission," says Korotev. "It was really about politics. It took scientists like Bob Walker to bring these samples back — to show the value of them for research. "Bob convinced them to build a receiving lab for the samples and advised them on the handling and storage of them. "We didn't' go to the moon to collect rocks, so we scientists are really lucky that we have this collection."

    A good quote from Jeff Rense:

    There are scientists who have spent many years of their careers just studying Moon rocks. But are the rocks they examined and worked with real? All of them, some of them or none? Exposing this massive photo fraud would be devastating to these men and women, even endangering their scientific reputations after being fooled for the past 40 years. If so, Moon rocks would suddenly be on the same level as the shroud of Turin.

    Did Apollo astronauts really bring back rocks from the moon? Nobody knows!
     
  2. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I'm fairly sure it was written quite some time before the new spectroscopic machines detected significant hydroxyl in the beads and apatite crystals. Having said that the general premise is sound. The hydroxyl is sealed in the beads and as such the rocks themselves have no water and show no such formation and reaction from it. The samples are bone dry with no oceanic water reactions. Did you have a provable point there?

    Are you still ignoring that the beads show signs of being formed in low gravity? The presence of solar isotopes?


    A comment of ignorance and the appeal to incredulity. The man makes a comment about irradiation of the rocks, where it occurs over billions of years and thousands of solar events and compares it to astronauts visiting for 1-3 days. You think that was a good quote? Meh!

    The design team, contruction team, launch team, flight team, retrieval team and the invisibly launched rocket(s)? No, that is a ridiculous claim. It is extremely difficult to return anything that big, safely from the Moon even today. The Soviets managed less than a handfull.

    Besides, every rock, every piece of regolith has substantial numbers of analyses against it.

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/

    62 pages of geologists who have examined these rocks!

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_sourcebook/pdf/References.pdf

    That figure you quoted was for soon after Apollo 11. To put it into perspective here is a 300 page report on just one of the Apollo 17 catalogs:-

    https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/A17SampleCat_3.pdf

    I don't know what your point is, but it sounds childish and uninformed, The rocks from the Moon have identical oxygen isotopes, The meteorites have terrestrial weathering. Gee, that discounts them as a source huh?

    It seems to be lost does it?

    http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120009885
    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2013/pdf/2868.pdf

    Does it concern you relying on such inaccurate bullcrap?

    This was a major solar event! They are very infrequent and none occurred during any of the missions.

    At first the priority was beating the Soviets, but once the USA realised they had a very real chance of being the first, various other things were thrown in to the occasion. They weren't going to televise Apollo 11 in the original planning meeting.

    But regardless, what is your point? That the "hoax" planners were talked into the massive task of supplying samples over 6 missions? Yeah, that makes logical sense doesn't it!

    A good quote? Why is it? It's just another hyper ignorant fool making speculative hogwash. I missed the part where he offered any proof for that claim!


    Apart from the 62 pages of geologists and the people who have read their reports and anyone who has the power of critical thinking. Very ignorant people seem to make suggestions without knowing any of the information, should we include you in this list? I mean seriously, go back and read just how wrong you are on that whole post!


    So back to my original statements. They can't be Earth rocks because they have solar isotopes, the water is almost exclusively locked in beads and crystals. All your inept fumbling quotes and responses seem to be avoiding this.
     
  3. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18

    The point that I was trying to make here is that the moon rocks are not PROOF that we went to the moon. How can you use this as proof of anything when the story keeps changing? Even a pro-Apollo site like Clavius can't keep up with their story on the moon rocks.

    And it is absolutely not true that the moon rocks have no water as you stated above:

    NASA ADS: Water in evolved lunar rocks:
    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015PhDT........85R

    "The Moon was thought to be completely anhydrous until indigenous water was found in lunar samples in 2008. This discovery raised two fundamental questions about the Moon: how much water is present in the bulk Moon and is water uniformly distributed in the lunar interior? To address these questions, I studied a suite of lunar samples rich in a chemical component called KREEP (K, Rare Earth Elements, P)"

    "our measurements of residual glass in a KREEP basalt show that the KREEP basaltic magmas contained 10 times less water than the source of the Apollo 17 pyroclastic glass beads"


    So even water content of supposed lunar samples vary by as much as a factor of 10 in the water they contain!

    That is correct - the oxygen isotopes appear to be the same as on the earth:

    "The standard GIH (Giant Impact Hypothesis) suggests a Mars-sized body called Theia impacted Earth, creating a large debris ring around the Earth which then formed the system.[1] However, the Moon's oxygen isotopic ratios seem to be essentially identical to Earth's.[4]"

    Could you please describe for me the weathering process that would take place in the interior of Antarctica?

    Only a few PhD in geology types who have spent years studying this can answer these kind of questions if they can come to any sort of agreement and I'm sure none of them want to lose their jobs by saying something contrary to the official line. How convenient to have a small elite group of people with the supposed "proof" of Apollo. This thread started off about "air resistance and the flag" and now we have moved on to the arcane subject of lunar geochemistry - Talk about changing the subject! :)

    "Another issue is Lunar and Earth isotope comparisons. In 2001, the most precise measurement yet of the isotopic signatures of lunar rocks was published.[4] Surprisingly, the Apollo lunar samples carried an isotopic signature identical to Earth rocks, but different from other Solar system bodies." Wiechert, U.; Halliday, A. N.; Lee, D.-C. et al

    So what we have here is bunch of PhD geologists whose jobs depend on the official line spouting off a bunch of intellectual geoblather gobbledegook - and whose pronouncements of the official "geochemistry of the moon rocks" changes like the seasons!!!

    But I suppose it is not their fault - if some official person hands you a rock and says it is from the moon - are you going to doubt it?

    If the moon rocks are the only proof of Apollo - then there is NO PROOF!
     
  4. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Your "point" is just woolly nonsense. You aren't making any case that places the origin of the rocks in to doubt. The water in the rocks is almost exclusively locked within beads and crystals. There is no free water in the rocks! Do you dispute this?

    The beads which contain the water show signs of formation in low gravity. Do you dispute this?

    http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm


    "Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an extremely dry environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity."


    I suggest you read that from start to finish and at least learn a little more than the ignorant hogwash you are coming out with.

    Irelevant! The water they contain is almost exclusively in the beads and crystals. The beads show signs of being formed in low gravity. Whatever idiotic point you are meandering around, begins from an uninformed perspective and ends with diversionary junk.

    Please explain why you are avoiding the isotopes that matter, formed from solar exposure of billions of years?

    Most of the meteorites from Antarctica end up in glacial outwash plains. The main exposure is from oxidisation and water impregnation, included in this is fracturing from the cold weather. Often due to softer landing, the fusion crust is perfectly intact. As you don't know, the vast majority of the exterior of any meteorite is ablated by atmospheric entry. This removes any outer and stronger solar helium isotopes, formed by solar wind exposure. There is so much more, but since you appear to be unable to understand it and are largely ignoring it, I suggest you use a search engine and educate yourself!

    http://www.lpi.usra.edu/books/MESSII/9041.pdf
    http://oro.open.ac.uk/43499/

    Ridiculous. I showed you a PDF detailing 62 pages of people who have studied these samples. Your bullcrap, "yeah they're all lying" is so typical of the average Moon hoax fool!

    How annoying, a cherry picking quote from wiki that is inaccurate! The report is an analysis of Oxygen isotopes.

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/294/5541/345.abstract

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4128260/
    "We have the peculiar circumstance that the Earth and Moon, while apparently nearly identical in most isotope ratios, are substantially different in their bulk chemistry."

    No, what we have is a floundering hoax believer who has no idea what he is talking about, who ignores major points and makes biased, baseless and hopeless claims.


    Bullcrap! It isn't the only proof.
     
  5. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    From your own quoted article:

    New approaches to the Moon's isotopic crisis:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4128260/

    "It is now clear that the Moon is a differentiated body with a bulk chemical composition generally similar to that of the Earth's mantle, but compared with the Earth, the Moon is strongly depleted in volatiles such as Na, K, Rb and especially water. Until recently, bulk chemical estimates also suggested that the Moon is slightly enriched in refractory elements such as Al and Ca, although revisions of the Moon's crustal thickness have now made the Moon seem more similar to the Earth in these elements. In addition, the Moon's silicate rocks are believed to contain about twice as much iron oxide, FeO, as the Earth's mantle, although Warren [1] dissents from this difference, as listed in table 1. Table 1, after Khan et al. [2], compares several estimates of the major oxide abundances in the bulk silicate Moon with a similar estimate for the Earth's mantle. The slight enrichment of the Moon in Al and Ca reported in this table has now been largely or completely erased by the recent discoveries of NASA's GRAIL mission that reduced the average crustal thickness of the Moon to 35 km [9]. The volatile element depletions, however, remain as strong chemical differences between the Earth and Moon, in spite of more recent discoveries suggesting that the Moon's interior is not as depleted in water as initially supposed.

    At first sight, this would rule out the giant impact scenario. However, none of the other older models of the Moon's origin can accommodate these facts either. Evidently, the recent high-precision isotopic determinations in lunar rocks have created a crisis for both the giant impact origin, and every other origin scenario."


    NOBODY KNOWS !!!



    Joni Mitchell - Both Sides Now on Mama Cass Show 1969
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NdsnFZm0X4


    Both Sides of Moon Rocks Now

    Rows and flows of lunar dust
    And moon rocks with oxide rust
    And solar isotopes with radio decay
    I've looked at moon rocks that way

    But now they are different than the sun
    Rain and snow have weathered everyone
    So many things I would have done
    But moon rocks I study all day

    I've looked at moon rocks from both sides now
    From up and down, and still somehow
    It's moon rocks illusions I recall
    I really don't know moon rocks at all
    :)
     
  6. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Let's cut the crap shall we?

    The rocks are very similar. Very. There are isotopes that match beautifully indicating a number of formations theses.

    BUT!!

    The rocks aren't from Earth because they have no terrestrial weathering properties, they show signs of formation in lower gravity and an extremely dry environment. They are also irradiated by billions of years of solar emissions. Their exteriors are noticeably more exposed from shallower penetrating solar wind.

    The rocks cannot be from meteorites because they have no terrestrial weathering properties. Their exteriors are noticeably more exposed from shallower penetrating solar wind. The volumes involved are ludicrous for retrireval purposes and releated to the number of lunar rocks ever found. They also have different levels of solar isotope decay.

    Problems with differences create problems for a coherent theory of how the Moon was formed.




    YOUR RUBBISH OPINION IS NOTED!!!
    It is uninformed, biased and ignores the major points highlighted above:-


    http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm
     
  7. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Beta, In your quoted article by:

    Randy L. Korotev
    Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences
    Washington University in St. Louis
    Last revised: 05-Oct-2015


    How Do We Know That It's a Rock from the Moon?:
    http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm

    It clearly states:

    "Many terrestrial minerals contain water as part of their crystal structure. Micas and amphiboles are common examples. Hydrous (water containing) minerals have not been found on the Moon. The simplicity of lunar mineralogy often makes it very easy for me to say with great confidence "This is not a moon rock."

    Beta, I don't get it. Here is another one of your supposed experts on moon rocks saying there is no water on the moon. He must not read his own stuff or he would know that this is not true. In fact, I am reading that there are millions of tons of water on the moon. It states that the article was revised in 2015 so no excuses. Maybe they know the information they put out is bogus so they don't even bother to proof read. :)

    The Four Flavors of Lunar Water:
    http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/the-four-flavors-of-lunar-water-155380917/?no-ist

    "The Moon was considered to be dry in comparison to the Earth, until reports on the volatile nature of lunar rocks have provided opposing evidence. Recent studies have found lunar water existing in hydrous mineral apatite, Ca5(PO4)3(OH,F,Cl)."

    "New studies of lunar samples, along with results from several missions in recent years, have given us a revolutionary new picture of water on the Moon. Study of volcanic glass from the Apollo 15 landing site in 2008 demonstrated that tiny amounts of water (about 50 parts per million) are present in the interiors of these glasses, suggesting that the lunar mantle (whence they came) contains about ten times this amount. This was a startling result, considering the extreme dryness of other lunar samples."

    "The Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) instrument on the 2008-09 Indian Chandrayaan-1 mission collected reflectance spectra for most of the Moon. It found both water (H2O) and hydroxyl (OH) molecules, present either as a monolayer on lunar dust grains or bound into the mineral structures in surface materials, poleward of about 65° latitude at both poles. Moreover, the abundance of this surface water varies with time, being present in greater quantity in both local early morning and late evening and it increases in abundance with increasing latitude. These results were verified by observations from the Cassini and EPOXI spacecraft during separate flybys of the Moon."

    "These relations suggest that the interiors of these craters contain nearly pure water ice, with approximately 600 million metric tonnes of ice present in over 40 small craters within 10 degrees of the pole."


    That is a LOT of water !!!
     
  8. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You keep beating that strawman with bullcrap! He states quite clearly that there are no minerals containing waterr. Does that really confuse you? Basically the lunar rocks are dry as a bone and no chemical alteration from the presence of water is found. Do you understand this?

    The water is locked in the beads and apatite crystals. ie. It plays no part in interacting with the minerals in the other parts of the rock. The rocks show signs of formation in lower gravity and contain solar isotopes.

    I've bolded the salient parts.

    AND NONE OF IT HAS CHEMICALLY ALTERED THE MINERALS IN THE ROCKS!!!

    If you come back with more crap about water, you are just trolling. It has been explained to you quite clearly and concisely how the water manifests itself in the lunar samples. Your inability to address the parts about formation in lower gravity, no terrestrial weathering and billions of years of solar bombardment, is quite clear!
     
  9. KChrisC

    KChrisC New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    This is pure nonsense.

    As one that has studied aerodynamics and the nature of flight, I can assure you that moving bodies, in atmosphere, do indeed affect a "wall" of air around them. Wings, especially on civilian airliners, mass air to the front of them, mostly upwards. This air is then accelerated downward off of the back of the wing--a Newtonian energy mass transference. This massing of air makes the wing more efficient. Fighter jets don't mass as much air to the front of their wings, and are therefore less efficient.

    This effect can be seen quite clearly on cold days, especially mornings, when cars are moving slowly from a stop at an intersection. Because of the exhaust condensation clouds around the cars, one will see the cars' movements mass and then move the air around them.

    I have watched on numerous instances cars mass the air in front of their movement, then shift that air to the side, and then pull the massed air back to the rear--laminar-flow.

    Anyone that has been standing a bit too close to the edge of a subway platform when a train has entered the station will know that a mass of air is indeed pushed ahead of a moving body.
     
  10. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    NO, I actually do not understand this!

    The problem I have is that you want me to take the word of PhD geologists about other arcane processes when they can't even get the water thing right! And your quoted articles are absolutely wrong about this.

    Absolutely wrong!

    Maybe you do not understand the meaning of the term "hydrous":

    hy·drous
    adj.
    Containing water, especially water of crystallization or hydration.

    hy•drous
    adj.
    1. containing water.
    2. containing water in some kind of chemical union, as in hydrates or hydroxides.



    "Hydrates are inorganic salts "containing water molecules combined in a definite ratio as an integral part of the crystal"[1] that are either bound to a metal center or that have crystallized with the metal complex. Such hydrates are also said to contain water of crystallization or water of hydration.

    A colorful example is cobalt(II) chloride, which turns from blue to red upon hydration, and can therefore be used as a water indicator.

    A hydrate which has lost water is referred to as an anhydride; the remaining water, if any exists, can only be removed with very strong heating. A substance that does not contain any water is referred to as anhydrous. Some anhydrous compounds are hydrated so easily that they are said to be hygroscopic and are used as drying agents or desiccants.

    Beginning with the first glimpses of lunar basalts returned by the Apollo 11 mission in 1969, the conventional wisdom was that the Moon was essentially anhydrous. Although this view was based on sound reasoning (Box 1), it turned out to be incorrect, as shown by discoveries of water in volcanic glass beads1 and in apatite in lunar basalts2

    The conventional wisdom that the Moon is virtually anhydrous has been overturned. Even with the uncertainties in interpreting the H2O contents of apatite, it is unambiguously clear that the mantle source regions for the volcanic glasses contain as much water as the terrestrial mantle sources."


    Water is not inert in hydrous minerals!
     
  11. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Subway trains are enclosed tunnels.

    You do realise we are talking about a human being pushing air over 4ft and detectably 6ft in front of them?

    And just so we know, do you claim that the Apollo moon missions were all faked?
     
  12. Descartes

    Descartes Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2016
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Thanks for confirming what I (and Scott) have been trying to explain about the "wall of air" controversy - and those are some great "real world" common sense examples.

    I guess we are back on topic again! :)

    Oh, and watch out for the Bridge Troll - "Betamax the Bridgekeeper" :)


    STOP!
    He who would cross the Bridge of the Moon
    Must answer me
    These questions three
    Ere the other side he see.
     
  13. KChrisC

    KChrisC New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    With all due respect, but I have seen just that effect.

    During light fogs in the early morning hours, I, and my Army buds, would sometimes "play" around in the fog. A favorite thing to do was to walk just so fast as to get a mass of air/fog to the front of us moving as we walked carefully forward. None of us knew about aerodynamics, or laminar flow, but we did enjoy doing this to fill up the "hurry up and wait time" on cold German mornings at Grafenwöhr or Hoehenfels--especially at Graf. I have done this with my kids as well.

    Regardless, I have been studying the photo and video record of the supposed landings, and I can assure you, and any others reading this, that the Moon landings are a giant hoax. A human has never traversed the Van Allen Belts, much less landed on the Moon. The photo and video records are rife with anomaly after anomaly, and outright forgeries, that speak to the total of the records as having been faked.

    I started out as a believer in the landings--have been for over forty years--but started to look into it during breaks from my other studies, and found the debunker sites often being disingenuous, and outright liars at times. I then started to look at the evidence for the hoax myself, and was shocked as to what I have found.

    Later I started downloading and cataloging the various photos and videos from the official record; Just in case they disappear from public view in the future. During that operation, I actually made my own findings. In other words, after over forty years of people studying the photo and video records, I, without even trying, have found previously unidentified anomalies as well.

    I am not joyed to have learned any of this. I used to look up at the Moon with wonderment and pride. Now I look up and feel sadness and a tinge of shame.

    An American citizen, not US subject.
     
  14. KChrisC

    KChrisC New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Thanks.

    I love trolls, as they usually make it easier to reach a larger and deeper audience than would otherwise have been possible.

    An American citizen, not US subject.
     
  15. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Yes, that is abundantly clear!

    Bullcrap. They got the water thing perfectly correct. The hydrous material has no interaction with the rock minerals and is LOCKED within the beads and crystals. Your pretence about not understanding this basic thing is just obfuscation.

    Your strawman argument keeps going and those articles are just fine. They deal with the rock and how it has been exposed to water. It hasn't!

    Your idiotic denial means nothing. There is no chemical altering of the rocks from water.

    You are a troll. I understand that.

    It is when it is locked within volcanic beads of glass and apatite crystals. Your clueless posts are getting tedious now. I have 3 more days of this, then I'm off to do something interesting, that doesn't involve debating with idiot hoax believers.
     
  16. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    None of them applicable to a slow moving human being. Planes trains and automobiles are big fast moving objects.
     
  17. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Specifically which bit?

    I have to confess, that is one of the most bizarre explanations for flight that I have ever read. Massed air to the front of an airplane and mostly up? How far in advance of the aircraft are you claiming this occurs? Do you have some quantitive data or references for this? The airflow across the top faster than below is what causes the lift.

    http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/how-wings-really-work

    Maybe you can comment on that video(in link above) and explain where we would expect to see the wall of air?

    But on the ground, we can see quite clearly how rain on the surface is untouched in advance of the airplane:-

    [video=youtube;d1ZsAoqVafE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1ZsAoqVafE[/video]

    Other factors such as heat from the engine, natural wind currents and not least the draught factor from the car moving in front affect this scenario.

    Seems an odd hobby. I think a more practical demonstration is much more convincing. Here we have high speed trains passing by, take note of the snow on the platform and when it begins to move:-

    [video=youtube;i7d0qrHFVM0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7d0qrHFVM0[/video]

    On an open platform, this occurs as it passes. In an enclosed tunnel, with nowhere to go, the air is pushed down the tunnel.
     
  18. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    How convenient. You arrive and make your first post in this very thread and you just happen to be a hoax believer. So your fun with fog antics should be able to explain why the flag in this video doesn't move from 4-6 feet away?

    [video=youtube;V2uhMQXRegc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2uhMQXRegc[/video]

    I really couldn't care less about your "reassurance".

    Specifically why not? The Apollo trajectories incorporated elliptical paths around the very weaker edges.

    List a few of them. There is a forum called apollohoax.net that will accomodate your confusion. Thankfully I am cutting myself off from this madness in a few days, but let's see your best hand.

    Secret findings are they?

    Maybe you have an explanation for the lunar samples that doesn't rely on technology superior to that which landed us on the Moon!
     
  19. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I've already shown that the said site is a government damage-control site.
    http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059062077&postcount=5
    http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059062166&postcount=8


    My question to Jay Windley*...
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907

    His response...
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990
    http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251326

    Those posters know the missions were faked as well as the hoax-believers do. They are all paid sophists.


    *
    http://www.clavius.org/about.html
     
  20. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You have shown nothing of the sort. You are a coward who cannot answer to real world experts.

    Was perfectly answered and the implication and response was ignored by you!

    Liar. They know the missions happened as recorded. Only very ignorant people claim otherwise.

    Bullcrap. Prove it. Where do I apply?

    Buries your wall of spam. As does this

    http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/

    You are irrelevant to a debate forum. You are a spammimg automaton with no individual thinking ability.
     
  21. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I forgot to respond to this the other day.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=362999&page=2&p=1064030792#post1064030792


    Jay Windley* said that just transporting and placing large-grained dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust-cloud when the sand is driven over (see post #169). Only a paid sophist would say something such as that. He must have had too many cups of coffee that day and hadn't thought it through before answering. You totally discredited yourself by agreeing with him.


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


    *
    http://www.clavius.org/about.html
     
  22. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And you forgot today. That link is idiotic observation.

    Who cares about your opinion you useless spammer.

    Who is better qualified to talk about rock and aggregate transportation the person who does it for a living or a geologist? Anyone who says the latter is a serial forum spammer
     
  23. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
  24. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I have no idea why you are allowed to spam those links over and over again. Your strawman claim is pathetic in the extreme. You think finding a few unqualified people to agree a heory means that it was true?

    The engineer is qualified, the geologists are offering opinions that they have no experience of. That is all anyone needs to know.
     
  25. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    So your position is that it's simply impossible to have a soundstage with large-grained dust-free sand on it. Is that your position? Are you saying that there is simply no way to transport and place large-grained dust-free sand on a sound stage and end up with sand with no dust in it? Doesn't Mother Nature do it when large-grained dust-free sand ends up on beaches? If Mother Nature can do it, why can't humans do it?
     

Share This Page