LOVE THIS MOON PHOTO BECAUSE ...

It's not magic, it's physics. The dust followed a ballastic trajectory away from the lander, it did not billow and collect on the footpads the way it would on earth.

Well, I guess you did, but I still don't know why. Because I can think and you can't? You still have time to learn how to do it, don't worry.
[link to blog.thenarcissistinyourlife.com]

And last but not least-I didn't even asking YOU, but someone with imagination! You've wasted your time, because you wanted to.
Please, stay away from me!

You seem to be agreeing with weasel,
weasel said

"Why should there be? First, it isn't true that there is no dust. There is some and that can be seen in some photos. There isn't much though because the rocket and dust were in a vacuum. And dust kicked up wasn't suspended in the air like it would be on Earth. It doesn't hang around like we see when dust clouds up here on Earth. It falls quickly. The rocket exhaust carried it quickly away from the landing site so very little landed on the pads. Also, again, the rocket was usually turned off a few feet before touch down meaning even less chance for any dust to hit the pads."

The nasa transcript would seem to disprove that there was little dust

Are you debunking NASA now?

only thing I found somewhat strange is that the American flag is dangling... below and behind the lander ( from that camera angle of course )when its usually flat out..well from most of the images Ive seen

Weasel is talking about the dust on the footpads.
Weasel is talking about the dust on the footpads.
Weasel is talking about the dust on the footpads.
Weasel is talking about the dust on the footpads.
Weasel is talking about the dust on the footpads.
Weasel is talking about the dust on the footpads.
Weasel is talking about the dust on the footpads.
Weasel is talking about the dust on the footpads.
Weasel is talking about the dust on the footpads.
How many times do I have to say it before you get it through your thick head? He's not contradicting NASA.

You mean this?
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
I guess you don't realize that there was more than one Apollo mission that landed on the moon with a flag. In fact all 6 missions that landed on the moon brought a flag. The flag had a rod that went through it along the top to keep it straight out. On Apollo 12 the latching mechanism that was supposed to hold the rod out failed.
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

*You can still see its long, thin shadow in some of the LROC images when the sun is low:
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

Last Edited by Astromut on 12/17/2012 07:41 AM

They made it to the moon. How, who knows.. But every doctored photo showed ancient artifacts or UFOs, so the pictures being "faked" is only half right.

Astromut you ever point the GLP observatory to the moon? Can we get some HD pics of it?

I've pointed it at the moon, yes. I can get you HD pics of it from my scope, but no scope on earth is large enough to resolve the equipment left at the landing sites if that's what you're thinking. Dawes' limit.

oh ok thanks a bunch Dr Astro!.. I love the photos

ah ok. Thanks anyway.

I'm watching the documentary 'In the Shadow of the Moon' and found my most favorite picture that I saw a long, long time ago.

It was the first color image of the earth snapped from Apollo 8 which was orbiting the moon for the first time - ever :)



I still get goose bumps and get all emotional when I see our precious home in this photograph.

Not only that,if the sun was in that position it would be daylight and the whole place would be lite up.No darkness at all.I have seen the moon so bright it looks like daylight on earth.A Good PIC.

Wow! And you can even zoom in on it. Very clear what it actually is.

If you're using Google Chrome, zoom it up to about +175, and use the zoom on the picture as well. Reflected in the visor, is a guy, in suit (regular, not space), taking the picture.

Yeah, just zoomed in on it. Clear as day.

I'm pretty confident that the thing in front of my nose, which looks like a LCD-monitor, in fact IS a LCD-monitor.*
Thus I expose your aphorism as meaningless drivel.
If YOU claim something isn't what it seems YOU will have to proof it.


No such thing as pure energy.


Watts is how we enumerate amounts of energy.

That's how we know the universe, by measuring it.
If you can't measure it you know nothing about it.

Now, please answer my questions.



Are you sure you're talking to me?
My post didn't have anything to do what that image in particular. Just trying to answer some general questions.



The gasses emitted from the rocket engine hit the surface and propelled the dust particles there into a ballistic trajectory AWAY from the landing site.
Since there IS NO AIR on the Moon there is nothing to cause billowing, so the particles will keep moving on their ballistic trajectory, AWAY from the landing site, until they hit the ground.
No way in hell could they have ended up on the lander.



You don't believe in shadows?


Bullocks.
In the hires image the other astronaut (John W. Young) is just a white blob.
[link to spaceflight.nasa.gov]

Why are you using an altered composite to determine anything?


* I'm inclined to say and write an LCD-monitor. Which is correct?

Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 12/17/2012 09:34 AM

Thank you for confirming for me that they did kick up some dust. Did you have any other point?

They were kicking up dust at 100 feet. Was that dust going up 100 feet to settle on the pads? No. Your own reference states there was a SHEET of moving dust. The dust moved along the ground.

I didn't say there wasn't. Please read what I wrote and not what you wish I wrote. Nowhere does NASA say the dust billowed.

"Opinions are like assholes...everyone has one."

Love that photo. You know, I didn't even think to see if it was available online, but there it is, the whole thing:

I remember when it came to (a few) theaters years ago. I drove an hour and a half just to see it.

This photo actually proves that the Moon is colored. The question is - Why NASA always shows black&white pictures to the public?

All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others. — Douglas N. Adams


That IS a NASA colour picture.
Just not a very well colour-balanced version.
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

The rest of us can actually SEE the Moon from where we live, so get out of the basement and LOOK at the Moon.
Get a telescope and LOOK at the Moon.
It's mostly grey and grey, with precious little colour.
So that's what even colour photographs will show.

1.That's what I said.
2.Not very well color-balanced ? You say NASA sucks in photography, right?
And why should I BUY(not get) a telescope and not trust NASA? Do you think they have reason to lie?
Here's how the Moon looks, according to them:


I feel sorry for you and your basement-based humour.

Than try to live up to it.
At least attempt to properly support your opinions.


What you are looking at is an image-macro posted on some internet forum.
I POSTED a hires version from NASA. Why didn't you LOOK?
"Provenance" - learn the word.


To get a better look.
You're the one expressing doubt.

So TEST your claims. LOOK.


That is how it looks like in one particular data set.
One acquired with greyscale cameras.
(Greyscale is used for higher resolution.)

There are many other data-sets, why cherry-pick this one?
Because it is the one that doesn't belie your statement: "NASA always shows black&white pictures to the public"?


I feel sorry you refuse to LOOK.