Hey there.

I have watch many conspiracy movies and they are quite interesting.
One thing that comes to mind is the many sites that debunks the "non believers". I wonder why, is it really necessary ?.
Do those people get a kick off by correcting the non believers with pages long answers about how physics really works and how the movie with other psychic people has it all upside down and have no clue on the principles of various elements. Who to believe ?. Trust your heart ?.

The lunar rover and the dust.
The dust sprayed of the ground and the vacuum of the moon.
All dust soil etc. that get kicked up in the "air" has to continue at the same speed all the time till it hits the ground again, it can't happen any other way.
A feather and a bowling ball travels at the same speed when dropped from a distance. Therefor the dust from the rover cannot travel they way it does in the famous Young and Duke clip. Ever.
Therefor the apollo trip was a lie.

Debunking is not done to convince the hoax believers, it`s for the lurkers which sometimes may lack the knowledge about was really happend.
Most CTs and HBs are so far from reality that no rational argument can help them.
You can`t reason someone out of a position he didn`t reach by reasoning.
For your dust argument: you have probably no idea how it should behave but you have come to the conclusion it must be wrong.
Good luck with this approach in real life!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but dropping a bowling ball and a feather from a given height is a lot different than spinning out in debris (which imparts a different amount of force on the various layers of particulate it disturbs, resulting in not all the particulate traveling at the same velocity and tradjectory)

But I would assume if your bright enough to comprehend things like this that you would not have posted your dribble in the first place, so I apologize for your ignorance leading you to absurd conclusions.

Could not have said it better myself!

So why does it not act that way ?.
It clearly stops in midair and falls to the ground all together and not in the same speed as it went up.

"If you watch the clip, you will see dust thrown up by the wheels of the rover. The dust goes up in a perfect parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. Again, the Moon isn't the Earth! If this were filmed on the Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum. Had NASA faked this shot, they would have had to have a whole set (which would have been very large) with all the air removed. We don't have this technology today!"

Sure you can, if one ever fooled around with cement you would know.
Cement powder will also make a perfect gray "moon" footprint.

Each particle of dust was thrown by a force imparted by whatever part of the wheel moved it, in a specific direction and velocity. It moved in an arc based on this initial accelleration by the wheel, and the arc is defined by the lunar gravity once it leaves the wheel.
Work the problem...find a particle, and measure it's trajectory and velocities, based on the forces applied to and acting upon it.

Good luck...I look forward to the results.

Utter nonsense. Research the subject properly, read some of the 'page long answers' then you'll learn something about science. I'm not sure what part psychic people play in this either.

__________________
Of all the things I've ever lost, I miss my mind the most!

It clearly stops in midair and falls to the ground all together and not in the same speed as it went up.

I wonder how you were able to so "clearly" measure the trajectory of an individual dust grain in an online copy of a 16mm film clip.

It's common to try to locate some visual "center" of a disaggregated group of moving particles (e.g., the visual center of a flock of birds) and consider that arbitrarily-defined point to be the actual physical center of mass of a single object. However, that's not a physically accurate method of measurement.

If there were air, such as would be thick enough to "stop [the dust] in midair," then why doesn't any of the dust aersolize (i.e., hang for minutes in the air) the way we see it happen on Earth? The problem with your theory is that you think that by pointing out that the dust doesn't behave the way you expect it to on the Moon, you've somehow proven that it's behaving as it should on Earth. Unfortunately the dust we see in the Apollo 16 film does not behave as it does on Earth. Therefore maybe you have to consider carefully how you arrived at your expectation for how it should behave on the Moon.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

I wonder why, is it really necessary ?.

Because questions are rasied that deserve answers on behalf of people who would be fooled by these conspiracy theories.

Do those people get a kick off by correcting the non believers with pages long answers about how physics really works...

Yes. Many of us believe that it is important to understand how the universe really works, not how some guy says it works who is trying to sell you his video.

Who to believe ?.

Not whom to believe, but what to believe.

Trust your heart ?.

Wrong organ. Try your brain. Conspiracy theories are based largely on saying that anything that comes out of a person's mouth (typically a designated authority figure) must be "wrong."

All dust soil etc. that get kicked up in the "air" has to continue at the same speed...

No. Dust grains vary in their departure conditions and thus do not follow identical trajectories at identical speeds. Each one must follow a ballistic trajectory -- you are correct there. But to try to impose that upon the aggregate of many particles and say that the "flock" of particles (as measured by some arbitrary guess) must also appear to follow, collectively, a ballistic trajectory is not physically accurate.

Further, I live in the desert. Life in the desert is governed largely by the interaction of dust and air. I am unable to determine how, if the Apollo 16 video was shot in air, how none of the kicked-up dust managed to make a big, billowy cloud that inevitably hangs in the air for minutes and can be seen for miles.

Your claim, "It doesn't appear to match what I think Moon footage should look like, therefore by elimination it was shot on Earth," avoids testing whether the film also matches what would appear on Earth. Since it doesn't, and you didn't test for it, you haven't really thought this thing through.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Sure you can, if one ever fooled around with cement you would know.

I am an engineer. I am extremely familiar with the properties of cement and cement mixes.

I also commonly use portland cement as an example of an impressible particulate. However, grab a handful of dry cement mix and throw it up into the air. Does it all fall to the surface, or do you get a highly visible cloud that hangs around for quite a while? If such dust would simply fall to the ground when thrown up into the air, as you say happens in the Apollo 16 video that you say was shot on Earth, then why do concrete workers need respirators?

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

oh, come on, guys.. stop using all your fancy official government secret agent book learnin and "logic" to make this guy feel bad. as we all know, the worst thing you can do in this day and age is to point out when someone is wrong, and then make them feel really bad by telling them why they are wrong.
you need to start treating them like our public education system treats them- with mood altering drugs and by letting them do and say whatever they want without fear of repercussion.

__________________
"blacker than the blackest black... times infinity."- Nathan Explosion
The.. Best.. Thread..Ever...

Why do people need brains, when they can let any charismatic person do their thinking for them? So much easier that way...

To sup3rbuckie: It is important to use your own mind to work through issues like this, as I implied in my post above. And you have! (Unless you're just quoting something you read somewhere. )

But that's not enough! Thinking for yourself does not mean just sticking with the first idea that comes to your head. You have to analyse your ideas, and either try them out (i.e. experiment, as JayUtah suggested) or learn more about the field in question, eg. by taking a course or reading a book on physics.

I actually like reading about errors in movies. It gives me something fun to watch for the next time that movie is on TV.

__________________
Rovers forever! - ToSeek
"Carl Sagan sent a message to ET,
Neil Armstrong walked in the Sea of Tranquility
Steve Squyers built Spirit and Opportunity
Dan Haylen upchucked in zero gravity." -Brent Simon, The Space Camp Song
'Evolution and science are one thing, but you don’t mess with Yoko Ono. Everybody knows that. ' - 386sx

And remember that all ideas are equally valid ;-)

__________________
Wanted: Diabolical Plan for World Domination.

The primary objective of the education system isn't education, it's self-esteem, i.e., it's OK to be wrong as long as you feel good about yourself.

The OP, BTW, is a remarkable bit of rambling. Psychics and cement: now there's a pair!

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Yes, it is.

Contrary to the oversimplifications of those who wish to read some subversive meaning into the existence of such forums as these, Apollo is not intuitively obvious to everyone. It was a highly technical project in a field not everyone out there is au fait with. Many people do not immediately understand that dark sky does not equate to night-time in space; that stars are intrinsically much dimmer than they seem to be; that seeing and photographing are two very different problems; that orbital mechanics is so counterintuitive that you have to slow down to speed up; that radiation exists in different types and these require different shielding techniques; that the outer skin of the LM that looks so flimsy is not the pressure vessel of the craft; that dust behaves very differently in a vacuum than might be expected at first glance; and so on. The truth of Apollo is categorically NOT a common sense problem with an obvious answer unless you have some knowledge of the science and technology involved. If everyone had that, NASA wouldn't need to assemble a team of specialists and anyone could go to the Moon.

Absolute rubbish. It goes up and is pulled back down by gravity. It don't do dat at constant speed. Ever hear of acceleration?

Again, nonsense. When dropped they start from rest (zero speed) and accelerate under the influence of gravity until they hit the ground. Speed of a falling object is constantly changing.

That's a big step. Even if we assuem that the rover clip was shot here on Earth, what about the remaining hours of film and video from all the missions? If just ONE of those can be shown to have been shot on the Moon then people really did go there.

__________________
"The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common: They don't alter their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." The Doctor, Doctor Who: The Face of Evil.

I'd like to see them come together more often.

__________________
"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction."
Shakespeare, Twelfth Night
Illuminati's Razor-The most complicatedly evil answer is usually the most correct answer. - Fazor
"Every book is a children's book if the kid can read." - Mitch Hedberg
"Distance doesn’t matter much in space, where if you just start a thing off with the right kind of shove, sooner or later it will get where you want it to go." -Frederik Pohl, Mining the Oort