NASA's Moonlanding Hoax Debunked Once and for ALL

The dirt kicked up by an ATV on Earth is going to be slowed down significantly by air resistance, so half could be just about right. I timed how long it took the dust to get back to the ground from about a two-meter height. It should be 1.5 seconds and that's what it appears to be.

[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]

Apollo 11, trans-Earth coast. Took thirty seconds to find. And, yes, it appears -- along with a half-dozen other pictures taken during that same transit -- near the bottom of the contact sheet first linked to.

Did you even look at the contact sheet before rejecting it?

Ideal Rocket Equation, IDW, unless you are practicing up for the Duane Gish Memorial Steeplechase!

Did I or did I not hear someone saying they would pick a single point and argue it properly?

Actually , the truth is counterintuitive in this case, and thats precisely what you're relying on. Air resistance at this low a velocity would be of little consequence with sand.

ANd is'nt that convienient? LMAO! Just about right!



I don't recall seeing any NASA video's where the debris reached that hieght, could you provide us with a link to it?
In the the video I've seen with 'roostertails' behind the rover , the debris gets up to about the same hiegth as the wheels, or about 2 ft.

So why did you post the first link? A mistake? A trap? And what makes you assume I waited until both links were present before starting my reply? You just GUESSED that I had seen both and chose to ignore the second? Just like you GUESSED I didn't go back and check the second once it appeared? Some scientist you are!


The second ain't shits of better, tho. Still too small to see anything but large-scale erosion. Not exactly where you'd see, say, run-off (a nice indication of water, that).

Regardless of which picture you wanted to actually argue about, it shows the same thing. Rounded hills. Which are themselves not direct evidence of what rounded them. There are erosion forces on the Moon. There have been in the past geologic processes on the Moon. No-one argues that. These processes are quite capable of beating a solid rock into piles of rounded powder. Apparently only you and your phantom professor doubt that.

Oh and by the way, I wasn't an English major. But since when did accuracy and you cohabit?





I think it is both blind and disingenuous for you to say this. Disingenuous, because you yourself (along with every other poster to this and related threads) insist on being provided links.

Blind because I have clearly described where and when I have learned most of what I have learned. I have given the titles of books I have used, in this and other threads. I have described experiments performed.

And when I do gather information primarily from a single link, I provide either the direct link or a sufficient description to reach the same source; aka "I saw this on APOD" or "This comes straight from the JPL website."

But perhaps most to the point, although I admit openly to gathering much material from the internet, I use what I understand. I challenge you to find a single case, anywhere, in any post I have made, in which I quoted material directly without attribution (aka, plagiarized it.)

Prove it or retract your claim.



This would be the motto you employed when you refused to believe how chassis ground worked, challenged me to perform an empirical test, rejected my results and accused me of not doing the test, and outright REFUSED to perform the same safe, direct, and absolutely informative test yourself?

Empiricism means do the work, IDW. It doesn't mean "I don't have to do it because I already know what will happen."

Or do I need to stick this in the IDW dictionary beside your entry for Falsification?

Show your work. Show how you identified a discrete element in a complex cloud consisting of multiple particles at differing velocities. Show the assumptions you applied for frame rate, the corrections you applied for perspective, and the mathematics where you calculated the ballistic trajectory.

No, the smaller the object, the more effect air resistance has. That's why tiny dust particles take a very long time to hit the ground.

That's why you use Magic Sand (TM).

[link to www.youtube.com]

Based on the video timing, there are high plumes (higher than the rover) at
0:16
0:53
1:01
at least.

I would like to say a few words about the number-of-photographs thing. A few words to IDW:

Jack White.

You may have had this idea when you were eight, IDW, but Jack White published first. And he didn't say, "I have shown it," he DID show his work. Multiple pages. Available to anyone who wants to read them online. With all his assumptions clearly laid out, the actual number of photographs tabulated, the mission times tabulated, the math shown.

But let me say it again. Jack White. The Clown Prince of Apollo Hoaxers. The Moron of the Internet. The man with an understanding of linear perspective that is shamed by that of an average cow. The man that after decades of studying Apollo still can't tell one side of the LM from another (hint, Jack -- look for the ladder!)

IDW, you have pride. You have -- and I have always credited you with it -- a basic understanding of the sciences. How can you possibly hold your head up when the champion of photographic frequency is this renounced charlatan, liar, blowhard, and idiot? I know you've read his work. It should make every shred of scientific inquiry, every trace of integrity in your body shiver with revulsion and a desire to distance yourself from that pit of festering stupidity.

Once again, just to say it;

Jack White.

I se no point in wasting my time responding to you. Using your alleged imaginative dishonesty to side track and derail a discussion with rediculous accusations of some sort of malfeasance on my part is not only childish, it's a waste of my time to respond. The photograph in the second link is of sufficient detail to prove my point.-IDW

Nearly ALL NASA photos have embedded, deliberate faults in skew, hue, scale, resolution or contrast.

They deliberately falsify their images to conceal details.

This I concluded after closely studying 3000 NASA images.

NASA has no photographic data to bolster their text about absolutely anything.

The Moon is NOT 238,000 miles from here; it is NOT 2000 miles in diameter. There are NO MILE_HIGH towers on it.

NASA confabulates it all.

I've never read anything from Jack White, ever. In fact I have read very little from other Apollo critics simply because I feel almost everything on the internet usually has another motive besides exposing the truth behind it. All of my conclusions have been reached by analysing what facts I do know. We have a given number of photgraphs taken withen a given time frame.The number of photographs taken on the moon were subject of debate many years before you were born, and that is a fact. Is was not me who first brought it up, but after looking at the amount of time the astronauts had to conduct experiments , take care of logistical concerns and take photos , I am thoroughly convinced it was an impossibility that is self evident.

As for your personal attack on Mr. White, all it does in my mind is re enforce the mans intergity without me even knowing squat about him. My reasoning is simple, I know my motives are not self serving and I was attacked in a similar fashion. That is to say I don't think NASA would waste money 'debunking' a man with no real arguement.

And you know NASA landed men on the moon and brought them back safely.

The problem I have is I know for a fact your conclusion and statement that I have read Jack White's work is a falsehood, whether you realize it or not. Maybe you should consider the possibility you are wrong about more than just that. I am convinced and always have been that NASA's paid supporters for the most part really believe the main component of thier arguement, that Apollo was real, and part of my goal has always been to convince them that they are wrong.

Wrong. Size has nothing whatsoever to do with how fast an object falls through the air. If you take a rounded piece of quartz the size of your fist and a tiny , rounded particle of sand made of quartz and drop them from the same hiegth at the same time, they'll hit the ground at the same time. [why don't you ask me how I know?] The only real variable to how fast an object will fall due to gravity through the atomosphere is density and shape. The reason why 'dust' hangs in the air on a dry day is simple, the density of said dust is low, usually because it organic and not geological in nature. On a damp day dust doesn't hang in the air because the biological component clings to the geological component by the process of cohesion.On the other hand , sand behaves just like in the moon rover videos.

Oh, please. I know we disagree on many things, but we share much as well. I honestly believe that if you went to Jack White's laborious web pages you would soon be laughing as hard as I have.

Integrity? This from a guy who crops and flops and rotates then claims two pictures are identical? Jack White has very little of that to claim.

Naw. Go check out the man yourself. Hey, one or two of his ideas actually hold water (in the same way a rusty bucket will hold water...at least, if you run from the stream to the campsite).



And who says NASA wasted any money? Last I heard, they got in trouble for even planning to sponsor a book about the hoax. Most people think they have better things to do with their money. Not that I wouldn't mind a bit of it going my way, but I don't do this for pay. I do it for amusement. The moment it stops being more entertaining than, oh, the Sumo season on TTV, I am free to wander off again.



But enough of you taking every possible excuse to go off on some personal rant about personalities. This is, what, five pages? When are you actually going to present an argument? Still waiting....

J.B. Haldman disagrees with you. Freshman physics disagrees with you. Want to see the math?

WHAT point?

You said it looks obvious like erosion by weather.

Gee hooey. Is this your definition of science? You can't even point to particulars? You can't show water marks or wind etching? You can't show a similar structure on Earth? You can't show that no other body in the solar system is similar?

You might as well point at a picture of a Saturn V and say it is obvious it is a fake rocket. That's about as scientific as you've gotten so far.

Concentrate on the photograph frequency. (Since you apparently can't do the Ideal Rocket Equation).

I have never seen the video linked to until today, but I thank you for bringing it to my attention. The rebound in the vehicles suspension and how fast the vehicle itself falls after hitting a bump and bounding is of particular interest.
It seems to me in 1/6 gravity it would be hard to keep the damned thing on the ground for long ,much less getting sufficient traction to do what is shown going over terrain like depicted, and this IS something I have considerable experience in , at least on Earth.

It is said a picture is worth a thousand words, and this is no exception. I think it is obvious to the reader that there are similar if not identical 'structures' on this planet's surface


ROFLMAO! Now you're going to tell me how to debunk the hoax!
So what are you now, my editor?

The difference is practically unmeasurable at this hiegth.

The 'math' shows that a grain of sand will have a frontal area to mass ratio higher than in a large rock, but we're talking about a max distance of four feet here, air resistance simply isn't a factor. The reason dust hangs in the air on a dry day is precisely as I stated.

Here's the simple form;


V = √((2mg)/(pAC))

(C is the drag co-efficient -- call it 0.4 for a rough sphere. A is the cross-sectional area.)

Better to use the proper differential, but I don't think this forum supports LaTEX.


You can include buoyancy effect, but as basalt is 3,000 kg/m^3 and air is 1.3 kg/m^3, it isn't going to be significant for rock dust.

It is obvious that bouyancy isn't that much of a factor when we're talking about rocks and air, but I will concede that the frontal area to mass ratio and the shape of the falling material does have an effect on how fast it will fall through the atmosphere. The point is, at the velocity we are discussing wind resistance isn't going to be an important consideration.
The dust you see hanging in the air on a dry day IS NOT geological in origin. If you doubt this, take samples off of a car left near a dusty road and analyse the material left on the car microscopically.

Err, I don't think so. Unless you are using the old IDW definitions of water being an organic chemical!

Dust doesn't hang as well in a damp environment primarily because water droplets condense around it, increasing the total mass. Even though this drops the density, it is still enough to overcome the ludicrously slow terminal velocity and drop it to the ground in a reasonable time.

I believe secondarily, water causes dust particles to adhere more than they would through normal electrostatic attraction, to the same final result; larger particle size.

Either process occurs without regard to the chemical composition of the dust. If this were so, they wouldn't bother misting for sandblasting or quarrying operations.

Shocked Quartz on the moon...thats a new one on me.Ty nomuse..I learned something new today..:)

Do the math.

Oh, I agree with you about Earth-side dust -- I have allergies, and I've been reluctantly self-educated as to the make-up of a lot of what is around me. But the original discussion was what was flung from the Rover tires.

But I think if you check the math, you will discover some strikingly slow fall times for grains that are well within the range of plausible sizes.

After all, to borrow from Haldeman, a lowly mite falls so slowly as to make it absolutely impossible for a fall of any height to injure it.

Using science to support ones arguement is a gamble when the arguement one is presenting is not supported by said science. This whole page was a result of my claim that the sand or dirt or whatever it is in the rover videos is falling to fast to be in 1/6 gravity. All you have done is bolster my contentions so far. You do realize that, don't you? You've provided me with more evidence. You've presented weak arguements that don't hold up to close scrutiny , and you've resorted to personal attacks on another Apollo doubter.
SO what have you really accomplished? Have you proved I was wrong by simply stating that I was? In 1/6 gravity the acceleration due to gravity is much less than on Earth, something even a person not versed in the sciences can wrap thier minds around, and that fact SHOULD be readily apparent and easy to see in any 'moon' video where falling objects are shown.

Well, the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, along with its transcription of the dialogue between the astronauts and the ground controllers, documents when every single photograph was taken during the various EVAs. If you could go to that site and point out the places where you find these claims unrealistic, that would be great.

It's the signature video of the lunar rover in action, so I'm surprised you haven't seen it before. As for the traction and bouncing, keep in mind that it's only going about eight miles an hour.

Yup. Of course it traps the ordinary crop of Hoax Believer -- they are simply too grossly incompetent at the science. More of them should realize they are on safer ground when they argue politics or motive. But they just can't stay away from that "ooh, shiny, science!"



I respectfully disagree with both points. I have made no arguments myself on the dust behavior; in fact, I'd like to think what I did was to help you do your work as well as possible (which is not the same thing as supporting your answer. What I want, is if you are going to do science, you should do good science.)

Jack White was brought in over photographs, not dust, and I hardly call it a resort. You've done squat towards presenting a photograph frequency argument. In fact, as I pointed out when I mentioned Jack White, he did better work than you do. He's already presented a detailed argument.

But, yes, I do think you are silly to go to that trough. Regardless of whether you came up with the idea all on your own, pigs have been wallowing in that one. It just makes you look bad to use it. I'd like to think you could do better.




Seems to me we do see that in the videos. Perhaps not always were expected, but when careful consideration to the underlying realities is applied, it is all largely consistent with a low-gravity environment.

(This isn't saying it isn't a cleverly FAKED low-gravity environment, mind you. It is merely saying that what is seen is consistent with the environment, technology, and procedures; ...hammer and feather, d-bags, astronaut gait, etc.)