How does a rocket engine work? Is it providing propulsion by blowing air onto something or is it the opposite reaction of throwing something out through the nozzle?
Did the lunar lander quickly race down close to the surface and then apply thrusters or did it drop very slowly with minimal thrust?
Why does a capsule need to make an impact crater when a helicopter in our atmosphere doesn't?
"The moon is a dirty place...The dust coated spacesuits, instruments, visors and skin...The dust is so frustrating, in part, because its so small. Lunar dust measures in at just 70 micrometers, or 0.07 millimeters, in diameter on average. That's around the size of the very finest grains of sand, or silt. To add to the annoyance, lunar dust carries a slight electric charge, a result of solar radiation stripping electrons away, and that property serves to make the dust even stickier..."
www.discovermagazine.com:443/the-sciences/we-still-dont-know-how-to-deal-with-moon-dust
(spoiler, the descent engine did blow the dust around)
"Now, the dust would be blown away as mentioned in my last point in the direction the astronaut on the photograph is shown (more or less in the direction towards the hatch where the navigation controls and windows were also installed), but if you look a bit more closer and on a photograph of higher resolution (included below), you'll actually notice the dust trail: Buzz standing just beyond the north strut of the Lunar Module (20 July 1969)
Buzz is standing just beyond the north strut. Note the distinctive dust smudges on Buzz's legs. The photo also shows the furrows in the bulk sample area and the area to the left of the footpad that shows unmistakable signs of sweeping by the descent engine exhaust. In a detail Ulli Lotzmann notes a reflected image of the rendezvous radar. Photograph and quote source: Wikimedia Commons, Credit: NASA History Office"
space.stackexchange.com/questions/1691/why-didnt-the-apollo-11-lander-blow-the-dust-away-or-why-does-it-look-like-it
And here is the answer to all this:
"Putting the Pieces Together to Debunk the Claim
At this point, we have two facts.
First, lunar dust will drop straight down if it is released - be it from an astronaut that picks it up or from the force of a rocket engine's exhaust (which, while not strong enough to create a crater was strong enough to suspend lunar dust).
Second, the Apollo engines were shut off before the craft landed.Consequently, as soon as the engines shut off, the source of a temporary atmosphere that surrounded the craft was terminated, and the dust that was suspended in it immediately dropped towards the lunar surface. The craft still had both a horizontal component to its trajectory, and the legs were above the majority of any of the temporary atmosphere that suspended the dust.
Hence, when the craft landed, it landed both to the side of the settled dust, and the dust would have already settled before the craft touched down, preventing any from being deposited on the LM's footpads."
pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2009/07/15/the-apollo-moon-hoax-why-is-there-no-lunar-dust-on-the-landers-footpads/
I'm satisfied with this answer.
Is it possible to see the moon landings from Earth with a telescope or perhaps even a satellite telescope?
Sure it would be possible to fake a feed from a satellite telescope to Earth but if we could see the remains of the Apollo moon landings from with even a satellite telescope, it would be fairly good proof the moon landings happened.
The way I feel is the longer it goes on since the last moon landing and no one going back there, not even a robotic probe to view the Apollo landing sites, the more likely it seems to have been fake. Its becoming like science fiction pretty rapidly and if things keep going the way they are, one day there won't be anyone alive who was alive when the moon landings happened.
Imagine the conspiracy theories that will be happening then, like in 2072 or whenever it is the last time humans went to the moon was 100 years ago and we haven't been back since. That will be very weird.
If Captain Cook travelled around the east coast of Australia in the mid 1770s and no one had been back after the 1870s that too would be very weird unless of course for whatever reason society and the economy had declined in those hundred years. However in our situation the world is much richer and technologically advanced now than what it was in the early 1970s.
This may have been mentioned already, but I'm too lazy to read all thru these posts.
Before the first LEM landed on the moon, we had no idea how deep the lunar dust was, and there was a fear that the LEM may sink into the dust layer beyond its own height, like quick dust. This is why one of the first bits of info radioed back to earth was how deep the dust turned out to be, only a few inches.
The previous moon landing where to collect data. for scientific research. Apollo 17 in 1972 was the longest time spent on the moon, and they collected all the data Americans needed.
Why return if they have all their data? A lot of money to throw down the drain for nothing to go back now. Mars, would be more beneficial as no one has been there.
A moon landing will not happen again because a few people don't believe it happend. There will always be some doubters.
If you say left, they will say right.
Overlook,you are kidding right.
The masses by definition regurgitate every 'truth' they've been told to believe.
I had strong reservations but great to see Japie finally waking up to the lies of NASA - at least in part
Now,are others capable of following him?
Slow down Pete!
There is a lot of controversy over the whole episode but I have no idea one way or another. I came across that article and gave it a brief going over. I haven't the time or the inclination to read up on all of the stuff which has been written. I've not even read this thread carefully.
I have to say though that it does strike me as being very odd that there has been no attempt to repeat what they are reputed to have done so long ago. One would have though that it would be ideal training for their aspirations to go further afield.