Re: Bad News for 'Moon Hoax' Buffs

From: Mark Martin (qed100_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 03/21/05 

Date: 21 Mar 2005 10:01:08 -0800

tj Frazir wrote:
> 1 . there was no moon trip to see live on TV.
> 2 , I saw it too.
>
> Dirt wount fall faster than a man in a sute on the moon. Evrything
> will fall the same speed.
> They dropped a rock and hammer then the dirt on his shoe as he jumps
> flys up and hits the ground 2 seconds befor he did.
> I saw that live and knew that was not the moon. The laws of
physics
> dont care what nasa lies about.

(*yaaawwn*) Post a link to the vodeo, will ya for a change? Everything
will fall with equal acceleration vertically. I challenge you to show
that the scattered dust was imparted the same VERTICAL speed as the
astronaut. In fact it cannot have been; the bottom of the astronaut's
boot is in the way. All the dust you see has had some portion of the
scattering energy puped into a horizontal component. Thus, the dust's
initial conditions aren't equal to those of the astronaut. Of course
the dust makes it back to the ground earlier.

> 3 ,, any idiot that thinks they shine a laser at a 14 inch target
on
> the moon in 1969 and the beam gets back to earth at the same place
is
> wrong.

This has been rebutted adequately all too many times.

> 4.. the rocks nasa found on the moon that fell from space cant be
> stopped by 2 inches of dust.

The rocks which are resting plainly on the lunar surface didn't, in
most cases, fall from space; they aren't meteorites. They are EJECTA
from powerful cratering due to other asetroid impacts. They didn't
impact the ground with nearly the velocity you claim. As for the lack
of drag-tracks by the stones themselves, do you seriously think that
all the surface dust present today has been there, in that state, since
before the rocks came to rest in their present locations? The lunar
environment isn't as inert as all that. Dust is created from time to
time by pulverisation of rock in asteroid impacts. It's also ground
finer with time by way of thermal stresses. Ruts cut into soil years
ago can be erased by the scattering & settling of soil. No big mystery
here, unless you oversimplify your picture of how things work, which is
what you do on a second by second basis.

> 5. A 22000 pound thrust rocket in space has a partical plume beam
> blasting into the moon at sonic speeds. A rocket 3 feet above the
moon
> will blow a hole in the moon.

No. The rocket exhaust will scour the dust off layer after layer,
leaving a bowl with a very shallow slope.

> A rocket in space 3 feet from a 4 inch steel plate will meltblast
and
> burn steel.

Uh, so? Did the LM's land on any steel plates?

> Air stops a partical plume but in space particals set in motion out
the
> rocket will stay in motion .

And what makes you think it didn't stay in motion? The cabin films
clearly show the dust spraying away in long, straight spokes.

> The rocket will dig into the moon long befor it hits te moon.
> 6. show us one thing on the moon.
> I can see 200 feet frames show me a frame with appollo in it

"200 feet frames"? What the hell are you talking about? Do you mean
that you've pictures of the Moon with a resolution of 200 feet?
Whatever it is you're blubbering, to see Apollo hardware from near
Earth would require a telescope with an effective aperture of close to
a hundred feet, and that's just barely what's needed to image a descent
stage. The experiments & footprints would still be grossly
unresolvable. Only very recently have any astronomical instruments
become available with synthetic apertures of that magnitude, and they
aren't being used to peek at the Moon.

> 7. Moon dust is high static dust the sun charged and stepping in
threw
> to neg and pulling the foot out and moving it over the ground will
> charge the boot ad all the dust that fliped over will fly up .
> One giant step and he should look like he rolled in coal.
> he neads a shield wipper because it will be a great colector of
charged
> dust.

Charged dust will only be attracted to surfaces which also have
[opposite] charge. Did the astronaut suits get dust on them. Of course
they did. They have dust on them to this day. But they didn't
necessarily carry opposing electric charges. What makes you think that
the suits wouldn't have aquired the same charge as the soil? The suits'
boots, of course, were made with high temperature rubber on the soles.
They were well insulated.

> 8 .
> nasa lander is the dumbest pice of crap ever biult by anyone. Some
> powerfull moron dictated what will work and it is still stupid to
thrust
> to the side and push aganst a wall wile standing on a surf board
that
> will slide away from the wall. It fell on its face evry time and
still
> will.

So... if I've a spacecraft moving in a vacuum, the best way to impart
sideways motion *isn't* to have sideways thrusters? You're such a moron
tj. Side thrust on a LM was in no way similar to a surfer riding a wave
on a board.

> 9 .. nasa found the hoover rock on the moon .
> and then years latter it got put back beside the iron seat in
the
> white house back lawn.

I haven't the slightest idea what you're blubbering about this time.

> 10. USSR got one probe to send back a pic befor it landed and the
dust
> swallowd it.
> 11 ,, the batt went dead ,,the solar colector got dust all over it
.
> The solar pannel has no wipper.

That's just a baseless assertion by you. Back then the U.S.S.R. was
lucky if half their stuff worked in space. The probe of which you rant
was really, really early in the pioneering days of space exploration.
It was a feat just for the device to work as long as it did, even
without positing suffocation by a mountain of dust.

> The laser reflector was charged by the sun and all the magnetic
crap
> will dump 4 inches of dust on it when they take off because its a
dust
> magnet with no wipper.

Now you see- this si the sort of crap that tells all about you. Even
given that an object on the moon has a static charge, it's only going
to be at the object's surface. The dust is also charged only at its
surface. Dust would accumulate by electrical attraction only 'til the
charge difference is quenched. A single particle layer of dust is all
you'd get. No four inches, bub.

> There is no sand on the moon.
> Its a big granet rock with impact blast .

*burp*

-Mark Martin