Viewing Single Post From: We Never Went to the Moon

Viewing Single Post From: We Never Went to the Moon
David C	Jul 4 2009, 03:09 PM
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08	This should make it pretty clear that Jay Winley is a liar. Read this post of his from the thread in question. http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1009&page=26#29354 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: You people really made yourselves look silly... Apparently not. Quote: ...when you said that it was impossible to make sand dust-free by sifting and washing it. We know why the dust forms. You just say it somehow didn't happen again during handling after washing and sifting. And those of us who have handled such treated particules know what we're talking about. You, who refuse to acquire any practical understanding of the process, do not. Quote: There's nothing impossible about sifting some sand and washing and scrubbing it until it's dust free and then placing it where the rover is going to drive. It has been clearly explained to you many times why it's impossible to handle particulates without generating dust. You simply say that it somehow didn't happen in this case, but do not say why. Quote: Spinning wheels over dust-free sand would not cause enough sand to erode into dust to make a cloud. he majority of the dust is created as it is removed from the washing apparatus, conveyed to the photography site, and laid down -- not right as the rover wheels pass over it. The rover wheels would aerosolize the dust that was created in those prior steps. Quote: This whole idea of not being able to make sand dust-free is totally silly. Not to the people who have actually tried to do it. And that would not be you. And the whole idea that dust-free sand would exhibit the properties you say you see in the videos is also totally silly. Even if you could make it and get enough of it under the wheels without creating more dust, it still wouldn't be ejected from the wheels in air in the "obviously non-parabolic" way you say. Not only is your sand made magical by the impossible process you say created it, but also by its uncanny ability to selectively defy the laws of aerodynamics -- laws you admit you don't understand. Quote: You can pretend all you want but you destroyed your credibility when you said this. Not according to any who have rendered an opinion. If you can refer to anyone who agrees with you at all, anywhere, now would be the time to identify him. Quote: If a theory that's being put forth is just inherently silly, it doesn't matter how many people there are with scornful patronizing attitudes that agree with it... Ah, so anyone who agrees with us simply has a "scornful patronizing attitude," and their opinion does not factor into your assessment of your own argument's strength. That would be very helpful to maintaining the illusion that there's a silent army of very knowledgeable lurkers supporting you. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now read these posts from a geology forum. http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: Moving and sifting sand is unlikely to produce any finer grains (unless you really go at it and whack it with hammers or something!). However, I think it highly unlikely you could wash and sieve several tonnes of sand and get it all the same grain size... Quote: transportation and dumping the sand will not be enough to cause dust creation unless you had a very dirty an dusty transport container. driving a vehicle thru it will not creat dust either (unless you repeat the process insanely often to grind down the sand grains) I guess he was so used to lying about science that he got careless and lied about something basic. Jay Windley told a blatant lie. He has no credibility and the whole Clavius site has no credibility. This lie he told is so obvious that anyone who tries to save him by trying to obfuscate the situation has no credibility. Just the fact that Jay Windley and his friends are there lying is circumstantial evidence that Apollo was a hoax as truth-seekers don't tell blatant lies. Just the fact that you people are here trying to defend Jay Windley is more circumstantial evidence that Apollo was a hoax.
Posts: 341 Group: Members Member #145 Joined: 01/20/08

We Never Went to the Moon · Skeptics