Somewhere two parts hit each other and cause the lid to abruptly stop moving. Can we agree on that?
Sent from my SM-G973U using JazzFanz mobile app
Holy piss, the Apollo moon missions were fake?!
- Thread starter TroutBum
- Start date
- Status
Sent from my SM-G973U using JazzFanz mobile app
DWC has been making points that you are not addressing @Cosmored. Do you have any intention of addressing them?
Sent from my SM-G973U using JazzFanz mobile app
Sent from my SM-G973U using JazzFanz mobile app
Yes but it's not where the dust is. In a vacuum the shock of the lid falling might cause the dust to bounce up and fall back down but there would be no force that would propel it away. The only identifiable force that's propelling it away is air. We don't know why it only blows away in that particular spot. In order to know that we'd have to be able to examine the underside. We can't do that so we can't come to any conclusions on why there's only air blowing in that particular spot.
Red
Well-Known Member
Lunar atmospheric composition....
www.nasa.gov
Is There an Atmosphere on the Moon?
Until recently, most everyone accepted the conventional wisdom that the moon has virtually no atmosphere.
Momentum doesn't exist on the moon?
Pretend the rock is a speck of moon dust and the catapult is the lid. Pay extra special attention to the fact that nothing hits the catapult in the spot where the rock is. Air is not required for a catapult to work. The dust gets catapulted off the lid.
If it was air, as Dancing With Clowns has pointed out at least a few times, the effect would have had to be greater because we can see dust on the base where the lid lands and it is not disturbed.
Last edited:
As I said, it would probably bounce a little but there's no force making it go in that direction at that speed. The movement of the dust is entirely consistent with the air explanation.
Holy piss, the Apollo moon missions were fake?!
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.com/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html "Moonstones" have no possibility to be compared on moon itself, because there is no possibility of a neutral control on the "moon". So, it's permitted for anybody to claim this or that stone would come...
And let me just say, I'm venturing dangerously close to a thing that annoys me a great deal, which is when laymen debate a technical issue at length despite not having the qualifications to present the facts of the case in a precise and accurate way.
All I really need to say is that the portion of the video you pointed us towards specifically was less than convincing for me and you have not proven yourself to be credible largely by presenting that part of the video as being irrefutable proof when it most certainly is not. Your emphatic defense of that as meaningful evidence is pretty much all I need to know about your ability to judge facts and evidence.
All I really need to say is that the portion of the video you pointed us towards specifically was less than convincing for me and you have not proven yourself to be credible largely by presenting that part of the video as being irrefutable proof when it most certainly is not. Your emphatic defense of that as meaningful evidence is pretty much all I need to know about your ability to judge facts and evidence.
Can you show the math that proves out that analysis? What's the mass of the dust? What's the rate of acceleration? Stuff like that...As I said, it would probably bounce a little but there's no force making it go in that direction at that speed. The movement of the dust is entirely consistent with the air explanation.
Holy piss, the Apollo moon missions were fake?!
http://www.geschichteinchronologie.com/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html "Moonstones" have no possibility to be compared on moon itself, because there is no possibility of a neutral control on the "moon". So, it's permitted for anybody to claim this or that stone would come...jazzfanz.com
Club Conspiracy Forums-Counter Intellegience Tricks and Techniques
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation by H. Michael Sweeney sweenfam@teleport.com copyright (c) 1997 All rights reserved Per
www.clubconspiracy.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you understand that applies much more to you than to anyone else here?(excerpt)Club Conspiracy Forums-Counter Intellegience Tricks and Techniques
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation by H. Michael Sweeney sweenfam@teleport.com copyright (c) 1997 All rights reserved Per
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dances With Clowns
Member
An opinion plucked from your backside that is still irrelevant. The impact of the corner is easily able to move dust like that in lunar gravity. Of course your pathetic routine is denial and diversion. What happens at the corner is the side issue that you keep blathering on about because the real issue closes your whole case completely!
You are a poor layman on vacuum and gravity. You are not qualified to offer such a hopeless opinion. So on Earth, dust will EASILY bounce up an inch from a direct impact, so 6 times that on the Moon works perfectly. BUT still all irrelevant.
Pathetic. The useless observation of what is "identifiable" ignores the completely NON-IDENTIFIABLE draft from the falling flat surface. If there is air, the falling lid sends dust everywhere not just some tiny puff in the corner to the side.
Yes we do. It's a vacuum and that is the point of impact. YOU know that a falling surface creates a draft, unless the reality of life has somehow escaped you. You MUST also know that there is draft all the way down and not just at the point of impact.
Here, whilst you are sat in your Spanish internet cafe, suppose you do a simple test to prove this?
Holding one arm out straight in front, bring the other arm down sideways, perpendicular to it like a lid. You will feel a draft.
How come an astronaut creates a draft from 6ft distance, but a lid doesn't from 1 inch?
Are you deliberately acting stupid or is this just natural? I actually gave you a video showing the operation of the battery cover! It is flat. The surface it lands on has raised areas at the edges.
You are cornered, check mated and your response would get you laughed out of the debating hall (not that they would even let you in!). You are like the Black Knight denying the absolute obvious.
A big flat surface, pushed shut falls a couple of feet - in air, it MUST create a significant draft. There is NO disturbance whatsoever in the direction of the fall, but a tiny disturbance that in a 100 years is not even close enough to represent a full draft. It is a vacuum and your stupid video has proven the Moon landings just by its ignorance. You cannot fail to know this.
Not to mention, the backfire effect will just encourage him into further thinking he's right, and an extended debate only gives his ideas legitimacy, not the derision they deserve.
- Status