Steve Ulman Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Speaking of moon dust and how it behaves .. I just read a few articles about Smart 1 crashing into the lunar surface and upon impact it sent up gigantic dust plumes, miles into space , which remained suspended for hours while the scientists studied them to get an understanding of what the lunar soil might be composed of .Okay, two questions ... If the moon has no atmosphere and is a complete vacuum then how did the lunar dust reach miles into space above the surface and stay suspended for several hours ? ... Why didn't it just drop like a rock in the vacuum of space above the moon ? And if the Apollo astronouts brought back 840 pounds of moon rocks , plus lunar soil samples , then why are scientists so excited about studying this dust cloud to see what the lunar soil might be composed of ? Does this not send off just a few tiny little alarm bells among the most die hard Apollo fans that something is very wrong with the entire Apollo picture ? http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/SMART-1/SEMI0USMTWE_0.html "I'm sure you're about to rewrite the article but I have to say I was tickled by the "huge plums of dust" (yes plums) expected from the impact... not cheese after all then..." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...61&posts=69 "Even without the mission controllers' help, the moon's gravity inevitably would cause SMART-1 -- now out of fuel -- to crash. But the agency has designed the spacecraft's final course to kick up enough debris so astronomers can analyze the cloud with instruments linked to their telescopes to gather more information on the composition of the lunar surface. " http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG5HKUCSQ1.DTL 1. Where did you get the idea that the SMART-1 craft put plumes of dust "miles into space"? Neither of your links that work (1 & 3) mention this. 2. Since your 2nd link does not work, I cannot comment on your quote regarding it. 3. I don't know for sure, but maybe they wanted SMART-1 to kick lunar material because they could crash it into someplace with different properties than were studied by Apollo or the impact would kick up material from deeper than most Apollo samples, or both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 (edited) Oh , you're right Steve .. The links I posted didn't mention that the plumes of dust went miles into space ... That information was from another link posted by a very kind gentleman who goes by the user name of Waspie_Dwarf on the Unexplained Mysteries forum .... I had so many links up and that I must have taken that one out by mistake . I will see if I can find it again , as from that link , he provided many long and interesting articles about how scientists don't have a clue as to what the moon is really made of .... and how proud they all are that they managed to crash a spacecraft into the lunar surface , so they could study the lunar dust plumes reaching miles into the lunar sky . So what was Dave saying about how dust behaves in the vacuum of the moon ? .... Hmmmm ... again . * edit * Here's the Smart 1 link I left out ... It is two pages long and has other links off of it .. It explains the dust plumes ... I will see if I can fix the link not working in the above post too. http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...p/t67914-0.html Edited February 21, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Speaking of moon dust and how it behaves .. I just read a few articles about Smart 1 crashing into the lunar surface and upon impact it sent up gigantic dust plumes, miles into space , which remained suspended for hours while the scientists studied them to get an understanding of what the lunar soil might be composed of .Okay, two questions ... If the moon has no atmosphere and is a complete vacuum then how did the lunar dust reach miles into space above the surface and stay suspended for several hours ? ... Why didn't it just drop like a rock in the vacuum of space above the moon ? And if the Apollo astronouts brought back 840 pounds of moon rocks , plus lunar soil samples , then why are scientists so excited about studying this dust cloud to see what the lunar soil might be composed of ? Does this not send off just a few tiny little alarm bells among the most die hard Apollo fans that something is very wrong with the entire Apollo picture ? http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/SMART-1/SEMI0USMTWE_0.html "I'm sure you're about to rewrite the article but I have to say I was tickled by the "huge plums of dust" (yes plums) from the impact... not cheese after all then..." "Even without the mission controllers' help, the moon's gravity inevitably would cause SMART-1 -- now out of fuel -- to crash. But the agency has designed the spacecraft's final course to kick up enough debris so astronomers can analyze the cloud with instruments linked to their telescopes to gather more information on the composition of the lunar surface. " http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG5HKUCSQ1.DTL The alleged astronauts brought back lots of alleged moonrocks BUT NO MOON DIRT! If I were a lunar geologist, I would want to study the dirt more than the rocks. Dirt would be more likely to have clues about the lunar surface than a rock. Dirt would contain clues about organisms and water that no rock would reveal. Any moonrock is either LUNAR in origin or METEOR in origin...so why so many rocks and NO MOON DIRT? Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 what are you talking about jack? They not only brought back 'dirt', they brought back 6 foot long cores. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Jack ... I thought the Apollo astonots brought back lunar dirt too ... but if not , then chalk up one more anomalous little alarm bell for the conspiracy side ! When I was reading Armstrong's biography in Barnes and Noble when it first came out ( and now seems to have changed text ) I remember reading that Buzz asked Neil where the soil sample was , as it was allegedly the first experiment that Neil did when he hit the lunar surface . But guess what Neil told Buzz as they were getting ready to blast off the lunar surface ? ... He told him that he forgot about it and left it in the zippered pocket of his spacesuit which he had just tossed out on the lunar surface !!! Oops too late ... The cabin was repressurized and the boys were suitless , so there was no retrieving the soil sample . Now if Evan tells me this dialogue is not in Armstrong's biography , then I will know I read this conversation and the other conversation I mentioned before about them taking their scheduled nap , in another book . As for the amount of rocks the astronots scooped up , again we only have nasa's word for it . Don't you find it interesting that of all the 840 pounds of rocks allegedy gathered from the moon during Apollo , that there is not one color photo showing a rock being held up by any of the astronots, from any of the missions, that can be matched to any moon rocks now being featured on certain nasa web sites ? .... Hmmmm ... again . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 what are you talking about jack? They not only brought back 'dirt', they brought back 6 foot long cores. If this is true , then why are scientists today so excited by the dust plums of Smart 1 ? Why would they be studying the dust plumes to determine what the lunar soil might be composed of , if they already know and have 6 foot long cores of it in their possesion ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 (edited) because there's 2 million or so square miles of lunar surface and they only have samples from 6 locations? Edited February 21, 2007 by Kevin M. West Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 (edited) Speaking of moon dust and how it behaves .. I just read a few articles about Smart 1 crashing into the lunar surface and upon impact it sent up gigantic dust plumes, miles into space , which remained suspended for hours while the scientists studied them to get an understanding of what the lunar soil might be composed of .Okay, two questions ... If the moon has no atmosphere and is a complete vacuum then how did the lunar dust reach miles into space above the surface and stay suspended for several hours ? ... Why didn't it just drop like a rock in the vacuum of space above the moon ? And if the Apollo astronouts brought back 840 pounds of moon rocks , plus lunar soil samples , then why are scientists so excited about studying this dust cloud to see what the lunar soil might be composed of ? Does this not send off just a few tiny little alarm bells among the most die hard Apollo fans that something is very wrong with the entire Apollo picture ? http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/SMART-1/SEMI0USMTWE_0.html "I'm sure you're about to rewrite the article but I have to say I was tickled by the "huge plums of dust" (yes plums) from the impact... not cheese after all then..." "Even without the mission controllers' help, the moon's gravity inevitably would cause SMART-1 -- now out of fuel -- to crash. But the agency has designed the spacecraft's final course to kick up enough debris so astronomers can analyze the cloud with instruments linked to their telescopes to gather more information on the composition of the lunar surface. " http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG5HKUCSQ1.DTL Duane NEITHER of the two links you gave mentioned a plume of dust being "suspended for several hours". From your first link... The intense heat from the impact could create a brief flash of light visible on Earth and a cloud of debris as wide as 3 miles, according to the European astronomers. If the cloud happens to reach as high as 12 miles, sunlight should cause the dust to glow brightly for five or 10 minutes, they say, and become more easily visible to a few of the best amateur telescopes in the Bay Area as well as to the professionals. Please supply the appropriate reference for your claim of lunar dust being "suspended for several hours". Cheers (Re your other claim - scientists are ALWAYS looking for more data to analyse - why shouldn't they? If you are asserting that scientists wanting to study lunar dust in a different way implies that they have never studied lunar dust previously, and thus implies that that the lunar samples are fake, which implies that the Apollo missions were faked... that claim is so absurd and ridiculous it isn't even wrong. It's like saying, "Scientists already have ice cores from the Antarctic, yet they continue to extract more. This casts doubt on whether they extracted any in the first place." Utterly absurd. EDIT Your third link was huge and seemed repetitive... I couldn't find anything to support your claim. Can you elucidate please? Edited February 22, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 Bump as post didn't register... And did you manage to see parts 4 and 5 yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 (edited) I read several articles today about Smart 1 , so if it's not in the links I posted I will try to locate it again . There were several that mentioned the huge dust plumes being studied but the second link I posted didn't work and might be lost now .... No , I haven't watched the clips yet .... I'm gonna grab some dinner and check out part 4 and 5 out now . I don't think it's absurd to wonder why scientists are so pumped up now about studying lunar dust as if they had never seen any before .... But the real point I was making is why would huge plumes of dust be shooting up into the air long enough for scientists to study it , if dust in a vacuum doesn't plume up but rather settles down immediately ? This information seems to be a direct contradiction to the way the alleged lunar dust behaved in the Apollo videos ... and more in keeping with what I have read in the past about lunar dust billowing up after the unmanned missions landed on the moon . Edited February 22, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 I don't think it's absurd to wonder why scientists are so pumped up now about studying lunar dust as if they had never seen any before .... But the real point I was making is why would huge plumes of dust be shooting up into the air long enough for scientists to study it , if dust in a vacuum doesn't plume up but rather settles down immediately ? This information seems to be a direct contradiction to the way the alleged lunar dust behaved in the Apollo videos ... and more in keeping with what I have read in the past about lunar dust billowing up after the unmanned missions landed on the moon . Duane... think about it. On earth, if you throw a ball six feet into the air, you'd expect to catch it in your hand within, what, about a second? Now, let's suppose you threw the ball two miles upwards. How long would it take for it to come down? (Ignore the effects of atmosphere). Now, suppose gravity were reduced by one sixth. You throw the ball with the same force. How far upwards does it go? And how long is it before it falls back down to the surface? No need to do the maths here. If you don't understand the point I'm getting at, then please explain why you think dust that rises ten feet (lunar rover rooster tails) should take the same amount of time to fall back to the lunar surface as dust that rises several kilometers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Ulman Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Duane- SMART-1 did not create a large impact plume – they believe it created an ovoid crater 7 metres long and 4.5 metres wide ejecting material to the front and sides. Your claim of a plume miles high is planned for the LCROSS mission. From your 4th link: Actually, says Colaprete, "we're going to crash twice." LCROSS is a double spacecraft: a small, smart mothership and a big, not-so-smart rocket booster. The mothership is called the "Shepherding Spacecraft" because it shepherds the booster to the Moon. They'll travel to the Moon together, but hit separately.The booster strikes first, a savage blow transforming 2-tons of mass and 10 billion joules of kinetic energy into a blinding flash of heat and light. Researchers expect the impact to gouge a crater ~20 meters wide and throw up a plume of debris as high as 40 km. This is being done to try to find evidence of water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Steve .... Yes , I read that also ... but I also read where the Smart 1 craft kicked up plumes of dust long enough and high enough to be seen on Earth and be studied by scientists .... but considering how dust acts in a vacuum , I was surprised that it would stay up long enough to be studied . Dave ... I watched part 4 and 5 and I now understand why Sibrel changed his opinion from the shot being taken from a round window of Earth in low orbit .... He changed his mind later and agreed with Percy that it was a transparency being used .... But didn't the LM have one round window ? .. Not that it would be needed if a transparency was used . I will have to admit that what they show on You Tube is an amazing piece of nasa propaganda , but it is still coming from the source of the fox , so to speak .... and if they can fake six missions to the moon , including all of the photography , then faking the images in this video , allegedy on their way to the moon , would be a piece of cake for them .... Ever heard of SIMULATION ? .... nasa is famous for passing off simulated missions as real ones , including lunar landings . What about the way John Young acted when Sibrel confronted him about the window transparancy in the Apollo 10 and 11 videos ? .... He didn't look confused , like he didn't understand what Sibrel was talking about ... but instead he looked frightened at the prospect of being caught ... Then he threatened to knock Sibrel in the head for asking him to swear on the Bible that he walked on the moon and then he ran away from him as fast as he could ... I'm sorry , but these are the actions and the behavior of a guilty man with much to hide about his alleged Apollo missions .... He was the one the Apollo 11 astronots were talking to at mission control while they were comparing his Apollo 10 picture of Earth to their Apollo 11 picture , allegedly taken 130,000 miles out .... Something about the white spots not showing up on the 11 footage like it did with 10 .... Sorry , but I don't believe this is proof that the astronots really left LEO and landed on the moon . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 22, 2007 Author Share Posted February 22, 2007 (edited) Steve .... Yes , I read that also ... but I also read where the Smart 1 craft kicked up plumes of dust long enough and high enough to be seen on Earth and be studied by scientists .... but considering how dust acts in a vacuum , I was surprised that it would stay up long enough to be studied .Dave ... I watched part 4 and 5 and I now understand why Sibrel changed his opinion from the shot being taken from a round window of Earth in low orbit .... He changed his mind later and agreed with Percy that it was a transparency being used .... But didn't the LM have one round window ? .. Not that it would be needed if a transparency was used . Sibrel changed his mind? I wonder why he's still flogging his video then... I will have to admit that what they show on You Tube is an amazing piece of nasa propaganda , but it is still coming from the source of the fox , so to speak .... and if they can fake six missions to the moon , including all of the photography , then faking the images in this video , allegedy on their way to the moon , would be a piece of cake for them .... Ever heard of SIMULATION ? .... nasa is famous for passing off simulated missions as real ones , including lunar landings .It's the same footage that has been available for years. If you think it's false, then it behoves someone making that claim to prove it... not just showing how it might have been faked. What about the way John Young acted when Sibrel confronted him about the window transparancy in the Apollo 10 and 11 videos ? .... He didn't look confused , like he didn't understand what Sibrel was talking about ... but instead he looked frightened at the prospect of being caught ... Then he threatened to knock Sibrel in the head for asking him to swear on the Bible that he walked on the moon and then he ran away from him as fast as he could ... I'd be a bit sick if I'd been hounded for months and years by some nutter who kept on arranging interviews under false pretences, then calling me a xxxx, coward and a thief. Despite that, three Apollo astronauts DID swear on the Bible that they went to and walked on the moon. Of course, to some people that is just further proof of them being nasty liars in the pocket of the Military Industrial Complex. Kind of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. I still don't know what sort of evidence you'd accept as being in favour of Apollo. Edited February 22, 2007 by Dave Greer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 (edited) "I'd be a bit sick if I'd been hounded for months and years by some nutter who kept on arranging interviews under false pretences, then calling me a xxxx, coward and a thief." Get your stories straight ... Sibrel never called John Young these names ... These accusations were directed to Buzz Aldren and Bart deserved to be punched in the face for being so obnoxious towards him . I watched Sibrel's documentary again to look at the "smoking gun" footage , suppossedly taken from LEO ... It doesn't look like what is being shown on You Tube in nasa's defense ..... There does appear to be a round window being used at some point because the Earthshine can be seen coming in on the lower rim of the window , distorting the shape of Earth . .... I'm not sure what was taking place in this part of the video but I can see where Sibrel got the idea that a round window was in use .... I haven't had time to check out the Apollo 11 LM but I could have sworn it did have a round window in it . Anyhoo , what Sibrel showed in his documentary was that the camera was taking the picture of Earth from the rear of wall of the cabin ... That's why things kept getting in the way .... So then I watched the unedited version of the video where Sibrel got his clip from , and it still didn't look anything like what is now being shown on You Tube .... The camera taped the entire 30 minutes from the rear of the cabin , but Armstrong claimed that the TV camera was completely filling up the window .... So something is not adding up here at all ... Could nasa have edited or even created a new tape to refute Sibrel ? ... The part not showing any astronots of course ... After all , it's Bart's "smoking gun" footage that has convinced many people that Apollo never left LEO and was a complete hoax ... So with all that at stake and considering nasa's record of telling fibs , I guess anything is possible . Edited February 23, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now