---By "model" I mean a numerical CFD model, not a physical object. And yes, you need those models in order to design spacecraft and ensure their safe operation. You need those models in order to determine how the plumes behave and interact with their environments. Part of my job is to provide the tools for just such determinations. My customers pay me for it because they really do need it. ----

Jay, I know what kind of model you meant, they are used in weather forecasting every day. Models are forecast and forecast are fowl-able. We have models of what the weather is going to do and quite often, the model is incorrect. What I was saying to you was we have lots of footage showing alleged landings and take offs. We now have actaul data (allegedly) and no longer need the model. After seeing some of this footage, if it is real, you won't convince me that the soft loose upturned soil of the landing probe was not visibly and noticably affected.


Jay wrote - It only stands to reason...

...i.e., "Based on my inexpert opinion"...

in the strange alien environment of the moon

Now I'm smiling, I only used that statement because it so often comes from your side of the argument (not from you but other Hoax Busters) that the things that are not explainable are due to the "strange alien environment of the moon). Sorry, I shouldn't't lump you in with them either as I ask of you....

Jay wrote -
Impacting where on the surface? How hard? Spreading outward how far? With what distribution? At what departure angle? The answers to your questions -- and to the arguments you've based on them -- are available only through the type of model you've rejected. You're operating way down on the "rocket make lots of fire" level and pretending that that's a sufficient understanding to rule on authenticity.

I'm trying to raise your level of understanding, but you don't seem interested.



I guess I'm just comparing pictures to movies to testimony. I watch the footage of 16 landing and it appears they have thrust all the way down tog touchdown. Now, it also appears they killed the engine just after probe contact as they let out a good "whoo" and the video show a pretty solid bounce. Then engine appeared to be moving quite a sufficient amount of soil at touchdown, heavy and thick. Hence, if 11 had ignition all the way to the surface, I am having a hard time understanding why the soil is so unaffected....ie the probe soil displacement along with the little mound of soil built up on the inside of the pad that has been pointed out. You mentioned 2500 lbs of thrust at touchdown. I'd be willing to venture to say on 11 it was a little more. Either way, 2500 lbs is a significant blast. Your right, I don't know the complete affects of a zero atmosphere on that type of blast, I'm using the video footage to grasp that understanding on 15, 16, and 17 since I have conceded those flights probably did operate as scheduled and the LEM didn't power plant didn't change significantly from 11 to 17. They were kicking up some serious dust when they landed.

Jay wrote -
You seem to want to abandon all rigor and just form uneducated opinions about what you see in selected evidence. Fine, but don't have any delusions that this "proves" anything except that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

If you want to argue that the triangle impression is anomalous because the surface would have been swept clean, then show me your fluid dynamics results. Don't just wave your hands and declare it would be so. Don't just make vague references to things you think are relevant just because they share a few similarities. The flour experiment was meant to illustrate the qualitative difference between fluid pressure and mechanical pressure, but instead of trying to learn from it you just ridiculed it. Maybe you should go back and think about it again before you post further.



No Jay, I still own the same horse I rode in on. The picture anomaly I am still at odds with is the fact the soil from the probe has spilled over and on top of the print. The other fact that came to light during that discussion (same horse) when you pointed out the dust under the pad indicated a slide. I merely am questioning (same horse) how and why the dust you use as your evidence, appears to be undisturbed by the thrust of the LEM as it landed. I agree with you that engine shutdown might have occured just before pad contact, they cannot pinpoint the exact time I know. No, I don't have the kind of model you mention, I just look at the dust displacement during landing from alleged actual videos. Given that, no one has adequately explained the probe displacement overlaying the print. That horse is in the barn unless someone has an answer an ignorant dunce like myself can understand.


I'm not pinning you to anything, and the ascent engines visible affect on the flag is a valid point to the horse we are talking about. It Merely points out the fact the exhaust is significant. No, I don't want the bible. I guess my attitude here comes from when I talk to people about this, they have been so brainwashed into believing the exhaust was a gentle cushion of air that had little affect on the soil. The affect of the thrust on the flag (3500lbs) is significant to demonstrating to common folk like myself exactly what is happening here. It isn't gentle summer breeze as they have been lead to believe. Your right, you didn't say the soil was unaffected. I merely feel it would have been more affected based on videos of 15, 16, and 17 during descent and landing.

You base your beliefs on data that is understandable to you, I base mine on data that is understandable to me. Pictures go along way with me and the guy from NASA said, "Tell them the proof is in the photos". A statement that resonated within my soul so here I am.

You know, it was rumored, rumored mind you, no fact to base this on, that Chris Craft used a vacuum chamber to dry out his home furniture after a flood. Too bad NASA won't free up any time today to demonstrate these facts but I guess whackos like me are few and far between and like the President, no need to debate if your ahead in the polls.



Always,

Uncle Jim