A Key Moon Landing Hoax Argument

[spooked911]

http://davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo5.html

The soil under the LEM is completely undisturbed. “Not only is there no crater, there is no sign of scorching and none of the small ‘Moon rocks’ and not a speck of ‘lunar soil’ has been displaced!"



"And if you refer back to the earlier close-up of the module’s landing pod, you will see that not so much as a single grain of ‘lunar soil’ settled onto the lunar modules while they were setting down."

[William Seger]

1. A key arguement against moon landing hoax nonsense

The LEMs are still there:



Before we get into an argument about your photos, let's get one thing clear: You have absolutely no expertise in analyzing what the landing site "ought" to look like, do you? Your argument is based simply on comparing those photos to your own imagination; is that correct?

[Gravel Democrat]

3. Lets turn Hubble loose!

That ought to do it!

Seriously, a picture that was recognizable would shut up the wackadoodles
right quick, ya hear?

Arrows are pointing to something that looks like boulders. Or something.

The face on mars looks more detailed. But we're told that's landscaping!

[William Seger]

4. Really? Then, here's a much better one, taken a few months later

... of the Apollo 15 site, and it even seems to show some evidence of a shallow crater caused by the landing, which Spooky is so desperately searching for:



There will be better photos coming of the landing sites, but I do believe that you're just posturing about how much difference that would make to you. Evidence is meaningless to "conspiracy theorists" because it plays no significant part in their "reasoning." Evidence that proves them wrong must be fake, even if it was by a completely new generation of space scientists.

(Edit: These photos are much more detailed than any that could be taken by Hubble.)

[spooked911]

5. So what is the scale on that photo?

According to this:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1971-063C
the LRV went on a 12.5 km expedition... I don't really see the tracks for that here. Also, why did they leave the LRV way out from the landing module as opposed to driving back? They ran out of battery power?


And if there are better pics of the landing site, I will be happy to see them. I am open to changing my mind about the missions, depending how believable the new images are.

[sgsmith]

10. The LRV was intentionally positioned there

Why?

To take video of the ascent of the LM from the surface of the moon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Apollo_15_liftoff_from_the_Moon.ogg

[spooked911]

48. still waiting to hear about that 12.5 km trip they took

that left no tracks apparently...

[SDuderstadt]

50. We're still waiting to hear from you...

accepting the role of leader negotiating with the "E.T.'s who have us quarantined", Spooked!

[William Seger]

56. "left no tracks apparently..." ?

Instead of waiting, you could have been taking a closer look. There are several sets of LRV tracks leading out of frame:

[spooked911]

62. Wow-- faint tracks that appear on higher power view

I can barely see them from your original link. A higher power view looks more digitized on my comp than your new image shown above. You must have made some adjustments of contrast and other things on that photo?

[spooked911]

64. also funny how clear the tracks are from space, but

down on the moon, the rover left no tracks at all-- in some places, at least.

[LARED]

65. Watch this video

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2rpp9_lunar-land-rover_tech

and you will find a possible explanation as to why you see only limited tracks in this image.

[spooked911]

70. the video is not good enough quality to show how

the dust falls back perfectly in the tracks of the rover.

[LARED]

73. That was not the point

The rear wheels have two degrees of rotational freedom. ie they spin and turn. The image you are fussing over could simply show a wheel that was turned without rotating, after it stopped and the track is hidden behind the wheel.

[spooked911]

76. this was the pic you posted

Note, the astronaut is facing to the rear, so the rover was moving to the right.

There are no tracks behind the front OR rear wheels. He couldn't even have backed into that spot as there are no tracks for the rear wheels and the wheels are lined up with the chassis, so it is not like he turned the wheel away from the direction of the vehicle.

[LARED]

77. I do see a lot of footprints in front of the rear wheel

so, perhaps that explains a lack of tracks.

[Old Troop]

80. That is so cool!

[spooked911]

8. by the way, the LRRR seems to be about 2 feet square

http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/humanexplore/exploration/exlibrary/docs/apollocat/part1/lrrr.htm
So we have some scale then. And so there's no way the LRV went 12.5 km-- maybe 100 yards or so.

[spooked911]

7. are you saying there would be no rocket exhaust that would leave

dark burnt residue, or that there would be no blast crater?

I mean, come on, let's be realistic. There's only so much you can hand wave about how they accomplished these landings.

[William Seger]

11. "let's be realistic" ?

Too funny. You are claiming to be able to look at that photo and tell, for example, that we're seeing dust under the rocket nozzle, not bare rock. How did you determine that, please? There does, indeed, appear to be a shallow crater under the nozzle, which is about what I would expect if a thin layer of dust had been blown away to expose the underlying rock. But you're apparently claiming it's not as deep as you think it "ought" to be, even though you have no idea what you're looking at. You're also claiming that you know what color that particular rock or dust "should" be after being blasted by that particular engine in the vacuum of the moon -- three factors that you really know nothing whatever about, but you're sure your expectations are "realistic?" And wooooooo, comparing the photos to your own imagination "proves" that evidence has been faked, which "proves" that your ridiculously implausible hypothesis must be true. Using that technique, you find "evidence" everywhere you look. Just like all your 9/11 "photo analyses."

Please show me a photo of what the site looked like before the LEM got there, and then maybe we can "realistically" discuss the differences. Your imagination is not evidence.

[spooked911]

18. obviously

we have no way of knowing exactly what that area looked like before that spaceship supposedly blasted down there.

But please-- are you saying that is BARE ROCK there? Really? You don't see those small rocks all over underneath?

And there is a mild depression, but not really centered under that large engine.

As far as color-- it all pretty much looks the same there.

The Apollo missions are just as bogus as 9/11, if not more so.

But I guess you have to deny that at all costs.

[zappaman]

20. "But I guess you have to deny that at all costs."

Thinking that the Earth is being quarantined with absolutely no EVIDENCE to support such a view, is a denial of reality...

Keep digging, Spooked. You're almost there...

[spooked911]

22. Except that I think there is a lot of evidence to that effect

sorry if you can't make the intellectual leap required.

Really dude-- you're the one who needs to keep digging.

[William Seger]

27. "all pretty much looks the same there."

Hmmm, but have you looked at any other photos? As usual, it seems you have done a sloppy job of researching, preferring instead to jump to your predetermined conclusions at the earliest possible point, with little factual knowledge and imaginary physics.

Read (and at least attempt to understand) this: http://www.clavius.org/techcrater.html
Then get back to me if you think there is anything that isn't covered.

There are rational and convincing explanations for each and every shred of "evidence" moon hoax crackpots have come up with, which you dismiss while simultaneously accusing people who don't buy your nonsensical "reasoning" of being in denial.

[spooked911]

29. yes-- why is he/she talking about a Harrier jet making a crater

when these usually land on a hard surface? Not a great comparison there.

A lot of time is spent on the math, which is fine. But still, there are small rocks under the lander. And no dust on the footpads. That doesn't really add up.

This picture seemed promising:


But unfortunately it's not on the NASA website any more. Pity.

In any case, I'm happy to look at better pics of the landing site.

[William Seger]

32. Because a Harrier engine has 10 times more thrust

... than the LEM would have used near the end of its descent, Harriers don't always land on hard surfaces, and anyway the Moon is a "hard surface" under the dust layer. Seems to me he/she is talking about a Harrier jet because it's a great point.

That page has the pertinent details from the photos -- the crater and the discoloration, both of which you denied -- but you can find the full photos by Googling those NASA reference numbers (e.g. http://commons.wikimedia.org has them, but they're too large to post here).

One thing you can see from those photos is that those small rocks you're now concerned with appear to be one result of the engine blast eroding the surface. Another thing you can see is an explanation for why the crater is asymmetric around the rocket nozzle: the module was drifting sideways when it landed.

So, sorry, but this "no crater" nonsense is yet another dead end.

[spooked911]

44. I didn't "deny" the crater or the discoloration

I said there was a slight off-center crater. And I said there would be discoloration, but I didn't see it in that pic.

Mostly you guys have been saying:
1) it's silly to expect a crater
2) it's silly to expect discoloration

So my points WEREN'T silly.

The harrier jet point IS silly.

Also, funny how NASA took those pics off line...


Now let me try to find them and see what the crater and discoloration looks like.

[William Seger]

57. So now you're denying your own OP?

But unfortunately, it's still up there:

> The soil under the LEM is completely undisturbed. “Not only is there no crater, there is no sign of scorching and none of the small ‘Moon rocks’ and not a speck of ‘lunar soil’ has been displaced!"

Thinking about why a Harrier doesn't gouge huge craters might give you some insight into why the LEM didn't either, but suit yourself.

[spooked911]

51. this picture purports to show some engine thrust activity

and there is indeed some streaks consistent with engine thrust. Though I am having trouble reconciling the angle of the shot with the pic I posted in the OP.

And there are still all kinds of little pebbles right under the engine!

Also, I don't quite understand the streaks in the rock-- looks like some sort of erosion, not really streaks of dust.

The pattern of activity around the engine is very irregular. I'm not seeing clear discoloration at all. And what's up with the cracks in the soil? What is making the cracks? That would seem to be from water activity-- but there's no water here, right?

Also, what made that huge gouge to the upper left?

[spooked911]

52. Also odd how the engine shroud shows no sign of exhaust

also see here:
http://www.apolloanomalies.com/pristine_engine_parts.htm

[William Seger]

59. This is getting pretty damn ridiculous, dontcha think?

Now you're appealing to an imaginary "sign of exhaust?" :eyes:

[spooked911]

60. yes, the lunar footage is pretty damn ridiculous

I am appealing to imaginary "sign of exhaust" as there is no real sign.

[William Seger]

68. LOL, I dunno about that

So far, it seems the hoaxers outsmarted you at every turn. Pretty much like the "no plane" hoaxers, huh. Damn, these guys are good.

If you're going to (once again) compare the photos to your own imagination, then I'm afraid you'll need to tell me specifically what "sign of exhaust" you have imagined -- what "should" the engine nozzle look like? All charred? I assume that once again you have already done the necessary research :eyes:, so tell me, what was that nozzle made of? Was it painted, and if so, what kind of paint?

[jberryhill]

55. "I don't quite understand the streaks in the rock"

Of course you don't.

Because they were made by the same assembly whose shadow you don't understand in another pic.

[jberryhill]

13. Why would there be "dark burnt residue"?

While I'm impressed with your ability to compact so much weirdness into so few words, I am curious to know what it is on the moon which you believe burns, and how it would do so.

[spooked911]

17. the fuel would burn and leave a charred spot

don't know what is so weird about that

[LARED]

19. How would the carbon (charred spot) be formed? nt

[spooked911]

21. Aerozine 50 has carbon in it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerozine_50

Oxidized nitrogen should probably make some color too.

[jberryhill]

41. "should probably"

Why should it?

Have you been to the dentist? Had N20 administered? Seen the color?

[spooked911]

43. ummm

they don't burn it when they gave it to people.

[jberryhill]

53. So?

How is a hot colorless gas going to "char" something in a vacuum?

You think N20 and NOx changes color because it is hot?

Tell me how it reacts with rock to make the rock change color. What is the chemical reaction you think is going to make the rock look "charred"?

I gather you don't quite understand how things burn.

Have you ever watched a video taken out of the window during landing?

I'm guessing you think there should be a big "plume" of smoke and dust. There isn't. And there isn't because there is no medium in which to form a "plume" of any kind.

That's why you don't see this behind the rover:



In fact, what you do see behind the rover is dust being kicked up by the wheels and following a parabolic trajectory back down.

I'm thinking you want the dust under the LEM to have gone "up" for some reason, in order to get into the pads. Ummm... pace some ballistic collisions, there wasn't much reason for dust to go "up", and once the pad were close to the ground, the rocket was shut off and the thing set down on the hydraulic shocks. So, how is dust supposed to get into the lander pad feet which are concave up?

[spooked911]

61. Covering several things

they added oxygen to the fuel to make it burn. That will give a color change as the fuel burns and oxidizes. Some of that oxidized fuel should stick to the rock below and "char" it.

Your next part is kind of rambling.

"Have you ever watched a video taken out of the window during landing?

I'm guessing you think there should be a big "plume" of smoke and dust. There isn't. And there isn't because there is no medium in which to form a "plume" of any kind."

Not sure what landing you're talking about. The lunar landing? I never said there would be a plume. But there was definitely dust strewn around. That was surely thrown up high enough to get onto the lander footpads, even if they were concave up.


As far as dust going in a parabolic trajectory, that doesn't seem relevant to the lander, and I'm not sure what argument you are making about the rover.

[LARED]

63. A suggestion

http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Combustion-Kenneth-Kuan-yun-Kuo/dp/0471046892

[Old Troop]

81. Why would there be a crater? I don't tthink any exist at Cape Kennedy

from much more powerful rockets. Some dust might be swept away.

[Gravel Democrat]

2. It's amazing that that craft weighed ~6000 lbs *adjusted for moons gravity*

6000 pounds is quite a force to stop.

And one wrong move, splat.

It's fascinating, really, how they could have brought that in for such a landing
(pads!!) without more evidence of that blast. Yes it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories
"The Lunar Module's exhaust gases therefore expanded rapidly well beyond the landing site. However, the descent engines did scatter a lot of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and many mission commanders commented on its effect on visibility. The landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically, and photographs do show scouring of the surface along the final descent path. Finally, the lunar regolith is very compact below its surface dust layer, further making it impossible for the descent engine to blast out a "crater".<118>

In fact, a blast crater was measured under the Apollo 11 Lunar Module using shadow lengths of the descent engine bell and estimates of the amount that the landing gear had compressed and how deep the lander footpads had pressed into the lunar surface and it was found that the engine had eroded between 4 and 6 inches of regolith out from underneath the engine bell during the final descent and landing.<119>,pp. 97-98"

[spooked911]

6. all the more impressive considering they never did successfully land one of those

on earth.

Also, I am curious how they had 16 mm video cameras set up for each initial LANDING!

[sgsmith]

9. Come on spook - simple google will prove you wrong

"they never did successfully land one of those on earth"

BS.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apoollrv.htm

And the 16mm cameras were film based and used inside the cabin of the LM.

[spooked911]

24. technically, it is true-- they never landed an LEM on earth

and that link is interesting but actually supports what I said.

They had some success with the LRRV but the LTTV, which more closely mimicked the LEM (but not that close*) was mostly a disaster.

I don't think Neil Armstrong ever successfully piloted the thing.

*http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/LLTV-952.html

[jberryhill]

12. "16 mm video cameras"

Now, we have descended into gibberish...

WTF is a "16 mm video camera", spooked?

And please show me the video, film, or whatever it is you believe was "set up for each initial LANDING!"

If you are suggesting that there is some sort of video or film of an Apollo landing taken from a camera on the moon, then that would certainly be an interesting thing to see.

But there just wasn't.

As for your other "fact" here, they certainly did land a lunar lander simulator on the earth prior to landing one on the moon. The problem is that you cannot land the lunar lander on the earth in the first place, since there is a scaling problem due to the fact that everything weighs about 83% less on the moon.

[spooked911]

26. Sorry, so sorry

I said "16 mm video" instead of "16 mm film".

And yes, I was wrong about having a camera set up on the moon to film the landing. I misread the excerpt.

Clearly this invalidates everything I've written so far.

As far as the simulator, they had lots of problems with that thing, when someone was on it, piloting it.

[jberryhill]

14. "6000 pounds is quite a force to stop."

About three king size waterbeds.

[spooked911]

25. a fairly meaningless comparison

obviously 6,000 lbs is heavy, but not that massively heavy. So what. It wasn't exactly the most sturdy-looking ship, and they had to make sure it landed carefully.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

16. Spooked you are amazing

You're like the Rocky Balboa of Truthers.

No matter how bad the butt kicking you keep coming back for more. Except you never win.

[spooked911]

23. thanks

in a way, that is a compliment

[SDuderstadt]

28. Spooked....

I know a lot of what you have been posting lately has been meant to take our minds off the fact that, as you have shown, E.T.'s are keeping us quarantined on Earth. I want to thank you for helping us "keep the calm" much like Bush did when he sat there glued to his chair after we were attacked on 9/11. One thing everyone can say, despite all the other bad things that happened that day, is that the kids did not get scared, thanks to W. And now, you have performed a similar service for us. I salute you on behalf of a grateful nation.

However, simply ignoring the E.T.'s doesn't work. Personally, I think they have us quarantined because they hate our freedoms. But, it's time to fight back. To do so, we need someone who understands the E.T.'s and what they are saying. At the same time, we also need someone the E.T.'s will understand and can communicate well with.

Now, I know that you're a modest dude, but the reality is that only one person fits that bill. One person can rise to the challenge and save us all from endless abductions and anal probes. That person is you, Spooked. Some of the others and I have been talking and we're formally asking you to negotiate with the E.T.'s to get them to lift the quarantine. It's your destiny, dude.

In the same way you revolutionized the 9/11 debate with the "bunny cage experiment", you now have the chance to make that look like child's play. It's your chance to save the world, dude...please don't let us down!

So, what do you say? Will you lead us forward, dude?

P.S. BTW, we're not suggesting that you do this pro bono. We've taken up a collection and so far we've collected $36.82, and that's not even counting the proceeds from the bake sale we conducted at Zappaman's house. That should boost the total well above $37.00, unless Zappaman claims another one of his infamous accounting errors.

Spooked...a worried nation turns it's eyes to you. Woo, woo, woo.

[spooked911]

30. I wasn't trying to take your minds off it

try doing some more reading on UFOs and so forth.

[SDuderstadt]

31. We need you to be our leader, Spooked.

Koo Koo Kachoo.

[cherokeeprogressive]

33. Spooked... SD wants you to be our leader, (as do we) and here's some good advice for when IT happens

[SDuderstadt]

34. Make us proud, Spooked!

I'd write more but I am tearing up. Don't let us down, dude. We've got to break this quarantine.

[OnTheOtherHand]

39. OK, OK...

I think the point has been made.

[SDuderstadt]

45. Not really...

Spooked has yet to accept.

[jberryhill]

37. Oh...

I'm going to assume you mean "more reading about UFOs" and not "more reading ON UFOs". I do a fair amount of reading on airplanes, but I don't know how much they are charging for carry on bags on interstellar routes these days.

[LARED]

40. Interstellar flights were canceled

ever since the ET's quarantined the earth.

[spooked911]

47. you must be desperate

if you feel you need to criticize my use of a colloquialism.

[jberryhill]

54. Utterly

The ET's have a death ray pointed at my head, and if I don't stop the truth from getting out, they are going to quit paying me and kill me.

[snooper2]

78. I vote for Spooked to be our Leader as Well!

please free us spooked, my young daughter is scared of the aliens controlling us...

We need you to be our spooksperson!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SDuderstadt]

79. "Spooksperson"...

god, I wish I had thought of that...

[defendandprotect]

35. Talk about "tin foil" what a joke the moon landing was!!

[terrafirma]

36. So, wait....

The PTB that are hiding the truth about the alien quarantine spent millions in perpetuating this hoax with models and mock-ups and photos and videos and on and on and on. Scientists working on putting out detailed schematics on how this and that will work to create a successful mission. Fake rocket launches. Paid "astronauts". The list goes on and on...

... But when it comes down to the money shot... the actual photos they will use to prove we actually got there... they end up forgetting "scorch marks"??

You honestly believe they covered everything from various modules and docking mechanisms and orbital burns, etc., etc., etc.... but forgot the scorch marks?????

[cherokeeprogressive]

38. I can relate. I was at a family barbeque once, and had all the fixin's for my hamburger on my plate

when I went to sit down next to my Pop. I put some mayo and mustard on the bun, put the lettuce on just right, followed by the tomato and onion... About halfway through the burger I noticed something jussssst didn't taste right. Looking down at my plate, I noticed the hamburger patty sitting there with the cheese still melting on it.

My Pop laughed so hard I thought he'd either choke or have a heart attack.

Yeah, I could see forgetting the scorch marks.

[terrafirma]

42. Guess it's possible...

Although I don't think one guy attempting to eat a cheeseburger is comparable to thousands trying to pull off a hoax of this scale.

[SDuderstadt]

46. I think CP was being...

"tongue-in-cheek".

[spooked911]

49. Also waiting to hear the explanation for the lack of dust on the LEM footpads

not to mention the mysterious way the rover traveled without leaving tiretracks.

http://apolloanomalies.com/rover_tracks_rebuttal.htm

There are other examples of the lack of tiretracks, too.

[William Seger]

58. You said you watched one of the 16mm movies of the landing

Did you notice anything unusual about the way the dust behaved?

[spooked911]

66. I don't recall saying that, or writing that, but

I did just find this on Youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kdp5bfcrHME

It's actually pretty hard to see what is going on with the dust from that video. Looks like a lot of streaming away from the landing site, though photos of the site don't show extensive scouring.

This site says, FWIW:

"The exhaust gas from the lunar module's descent engine caused some scouring of dust on the surface during landing. On Apollo 11, a significant dust cloud was visible when the lunar module was still 30 meters above the surface. "

[LARED]

67. Do you have a link to the quote you posted? nt

[spooked911]

71. sorry

here:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_11/landing_site/

[William Seger]

69. Not a "dust cloud"

... not a dust cloud like we would see on Earth, anyway, which is the point jberryhill made a valiant (but apparently unsuccessful) attempt to explain to you. There are somewhat better 16mm movies from other flights, but that one will do: The dust streaming away from under the LEM looks more like beams of light than a "dust cloud" because the dust particles aren't being slowed down and then floating around in any atmosphere. The rocket engine is literally throwing them out of the way, and they just keep going. As the LEM sat down on the surface with the engine still running, any loose dust would have already been blown out of the way by the time the landing pads touched down. It's clear that the exhaust did cause some surface erosion at that point, but anything thrown out would just keep going outward. I would expect that some small amount would end up on the landing pads, but the photos are not detailed enough to show any small amount.

Seems to me your expectation that there should be a visible coating of dust all over the landing pads is just the result of more fuzzy thinking.

[spooked911]

72. I never said there would be dust all over the landing pad.

Furthermore, the photos are good, and they don't show a single speck of dust on the pads.

Another funny thing is that there was plenty of dust around the lander, as shown by photos with footprints, so clearly there was loose dust near the lander.

It's also hard to imagine that essentially no dust was thrown UP by the rocket blast from ricocheting off rocks and crater rims-- dust that could have then settled down on the lander pads.

[jberryhill]

74. "settled"

You see, that's the thing... You talk about it "settling" as if there is some atmosphere in which it will billow and be suspended.

And, again, by the time the pads hit the ground, the engine is off.

[spooked911]

75. well, some dust WILL get kicked up

such as shown in this pic:
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apg_thumbnail.php?ptr=209&imageID=AS16-113-18308

and in 1/6th lower gravity, it will take a while to come down.