Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

JayUtah

Penultimate Amazing
JayUtah
Joined
Sep 29, 2011
Messages
29,001
Location
The great American West
grmcdorman said:
As with his 9/11 looniness, he claims to offer a 1 million Euro prize for anyone proving Apollo is real.
Click to expand...

Specifically in one case, he offers the prize for someone who can prove that Apollo carried enough fuel to perform the advertised orbital maneuvers. Of course that was done, but Anders objects because it wasn't figured according to his broken model of physics.

Even leaving aside the fact that he probably doesn't have the money...
Click to expand...

Is there really any question? He constantly brings up the million-euro prize and thumps his chest over the fact that no one has won it, but steadfastly refuses to demonstrate via any of the customary means (e.g., authenticated escrow) that the money exists. Naturally no one takes the prize seriously; they correct him simply to put the corrects on the record. But Anders is the one who keeps taunting people with the money.

...it's unwinnable as he is unwilling to correct his errors.
Click to expand...

That's the ultimate joke in his approach. Anders is the sole judge of whether or not he has been corrected, and therefore the sole judge of whether anyone is owed a million euros. He corrects his errors (see below) but he simply refuses to admit that he was ever wrong.

He did take on board one correction from this discussion: a spacecraft performing a burn changes mass. He still used that in the not-even-wrong calculation of energy requirement via KE.)
Click to expand...

Clearly he doesn't understand the mechanical energy of orbits, but the fact remains that he originally computed the delta-v problem one way, omitting the variable-mass term of the Tsiolkovsky ideal-rocket equation, but agreed that he should be computing it a different way and refused to admit that he had been corrected.

Not only did he refuse to acknowledge the error he corrected, he blatantly libeled a member of Apollohoax in the process. It's an epic ad hominem that would be appropriate only in the Stundie thread, if even there.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
What do you pro-Apollo posters think of this?
http://www.aulis.com/mythbusters.htm
Click to expand...

The photographers in question used the wrong type of film, a lower ISO, the wrong lens, and did not give us basic information such as exposure settings.

They purport to have duplicated the Mythbusters results and, by extension, the Apollo results. But they have deliberately withheld important information that they know would be crucial in letting others judge the fidelity of their results, and have shown in the information that they did reveal that they have changed important parameters in their favor to affect the outcome.

As with most of what you see at Aulis, impressive looking at first glance but ultimately highly dishonest.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
What do you pro-Apollo posters think of this?
http://www.aulis.com/mythbusters.htm
Click to expand...

I think the person is trying too hard to confirm a conspiracy took place when it didn't.

www.aulis.com said:
But when verification of this conclusion was undertaken by two Russian cinematographers Yuri Elkhov and Leonid Konovalov by recreating the shooting conditions as on the “Moon”, but in a studio, they reached a completely different result. The model astronaut standing in the shadow was very dark, not as in the NASA photo of Aldrin. Moreover, two cinematographers found that the mythbusters [must have] resorted to fraud. Initially the "mythbusters" got a negative result, but they then [allegedly] falsified the actual shooting conditions, and re-shot everything.
Click to expand...

Of course these nut jobs would claim that, the MythBusters came up with a result the nuts didn't want. I'm sure that they got the 'proper' results, the nuts would have no qualms even if the MythBusters obviously cheated (like the nuts did) to do so.

www.aulis.com said:
The Moon has light areas, which are called highlands, where albedo of the lunar surface is 12-13%, and there are dark areas, the so-called maria.

According to the Apollo 11 record astronauts landed at the Sea of Tranquility, where the albedo is 7-8%.
Click to expand...

This is all information that the MythBusters had on hand, and since they're not idiots they took it into account.

MythBusters18.jpg


So why such a difference when the nuts did it?

I'm no expert in photography or filmography, but I'd wager its the lighting source used in place of the sun. Too dim, too far away, wrong angle.

It could be something different about the camera as well, wrong lens, wrong film, wrong exposure, or a dozen other things.
 
Last edited:
Mudcat said:
I think the person is trying too hard to confirm a conspiracy took place when it didn't.



Of course these nut jobs would claim that, the MythBusters came up with a result the nuts didn't want. I'm sure that they got the 'proper' results, the nuts would have no qualms even if the MythBusters obviously cheated (like the nuts did) to do so.



This is all information that the MythBusters had on hand, and since they're not idiots they took it into account.

[qimg]http://www.aulis.com/mythbusters/MythBusters18.jpg[/qimg]

So why such a difference when the nuts did it?

I'm no expert in photography or filmography, but I'd wager its the lighting source used in place of the sun. Too dim, too far away, wrong angle. Something simple like that.
Click to expand...

I'm going to go with the additional factors of the model photo having a ridiculously low f-stop (see how the astronaut is about the only thing in focus), and spot metering on the brightly lit area of the photograph making the shutter speed very fast. This means that the background is lit normally, but the astronaut is in the dark. Even with that, the model is still visible. The depth of field in the Apollo image is suggestive of a higher f-stop.which would have required a slightly longer exposure, which is would explain why it is less sharp.

Broad daylight on the moon and you can see stuff. Who'd have thunk it.
 
threadworm said:
I'm going to go with the additional factors of the model photo having a ridiculously low f-stop (see how the astronaut is about the only thing in focus), and spot metering on the brightly lit area of the photograph making the shutter speed very fast. This means that the background is lit normally, but the astronaut is in the dark. Even with that, the model is still visible. The depth of field in the Apollo image is suggestive of a higher f-stop.which would have required a slightly longer exposure, which is would explain why it is less sharp.
Click to expand...


You see I didn't think about that, you can tell I'm not an expert in photography. But even I can tell the Aulis shots weren't exactly Kosher.
 
He showed you were wrong, and explained why.
Click to expand...
What he did was try to control the damage. This issue is too basic. Anyone who actually doubts it should go ask a science teacher.

I urge the viewers not to be swayed by rhetoric of you don't have time to read the info.
 
Mudcat said:
So why such a difference when the nuts did it?

I'm no expert in photography or filmography, but I'd wager its the lighting source used in place of the sun.
Click to expand...

My first thought is that we can't see how much light is cast between the model and the camera.

The astronaut is brightly lit by diffuse light scattered from the forground and from the whole landscape behind the camera. It's anyone's guess how much light was allowed to fall to the nearside of the model. Likely very little.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
What he did was try to control the damage. This issue is too basic. Anyone who actually doubts it should go ask a science teacher.

I urge the viewers not to be swayed by rhetoric of you don't have time to read the info.
Click to expand...

You mean a science teacher like me who explained to you how it would be impossible to sieve an entire set's worth of sand?
 
Mudcat said:
This is all information that the MythBusters had on hand, and since they're not idiots they took it into account.
Click to expand...

The Mythbuster producers consulted an astrophysicist, an astronomer, an engineer, and a lighting director -- all professionals -- to determine how to establish a properly reflective lunar surface and to confirm that they had done so. These people are all named in the credits.

So why such a difference when the nuts did it?
Click to expand...

It could be attributed to any of things we know they did wrong plus any of the things they might have done wrong and hidden behind their sloppy disclosure of method.

I'm no expert in photography or filmography...
Click to expand...

I think you mean "cinematography." Filmography is the cinema version of a bibliography.

I'm enough of an expert in photography and photo analysis to see most of their mistakes and deliberate misrepresentations. Another error is blacking out their photographer. It makes sense in a way because the scale of their model would lead you to interpret that as a confounding variable. In their case it may be an innocent mistake. However in this case ironically it leads to a less faithful reproduction. Armstrong was standing in full sunlight when he took that picture, and was actually quite close to Aldrin. (Don't be fooled by the wide-angle lens; it tends to amplify distance along the line of sight.) The space suit has a non-geometric albedo of something like 0.8, so it's going to be highly reflective. It's meant to be. And that contributes to the lighting environment of the Aldrin egress photos. They needed to have accounted for that in their reproduction.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
What he did was try to control the damage. This issue is too basic. Anyone who actually doubts it should go ask a science teacher.
Click to expand...


Again: would you care to explain exactly what you are referring to, and why Jay is, in your view, wrong?



FatFreddy88 said:
I urge the viewers not to be swayed by rhetoric of you don't have time to read the info.
Click to expand...


A funny thing to say, since rhetoric seems to be all you provide, while Jay frequently provides information which supports his arguments.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
What he did was try to control the damage.
Click to expand...

It wasn't damage:rolleyes: it was a badly constructed strawman that you couldn't even knock down.

This issue is too basic.
Click to expand...

It is irrelevant in the extreme, just like your habitual forum spamming. Even were you to prove that a small set could be created, with perfect dust free particles, you would then be required to show how that surface takes a footprint and exhibits visible signs of fine particle motion all in the same scene.

Your standard response to this is that you haven't seen such an example. When given the examples, your standard follow up is that the print isn't sharp enough. You are as predictable as you are persistently wrong.

Anyone who actually doubts it should go ask a science teacher.
Click to expand...

None of them doubt the Apollo landings. I've also consulted with some very clever physicists and scientists on many issues, who also have no doubts. I doubt very much whether you have EVER encountered a science teacher!

I urge the viewers not to be swayed by rhetoric of you don't have time to read the info.
Click to expand...

That basically discounts anything you have to say. You are like the comedy interlude, with your portfolio of copy paste spam.
 
And of course even if by some miracle F88 could come up with evidence such sand sifting was possible, which despite his claims to the contrary he has yet to do, that would in no way demonstrate that any part of the Apollo record was false.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
What he did was try to control the damage. This issue is too basic. Anyone who actually doubts it should go ask a science teacher.

I urge the viewers not to be swayed by rhetoric of you don't have time to read the info.
Click to expand...

I read this thread from time to time and am never swayed by the rhetoric you present.

May I also say that the Magic Sand episode was great entertainment. I thank you FF88. It couldn't be easy to come up with such brilliant sources of comedy.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
To the viewers-

When reading Jay Windley's posts, take into consideration this response of his...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990

to this.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907
Click to expand...


As Jay was expanding on a question I posed to you, which you ignored, I'll re-pose my question, and I request that you answer. What part of "this is an engineering question, rather than a science question" did you not understand?

And as for the "viewers," I think, as this thread has been split, that it's time we asked the lurkers to weigh in again. So, lurkers, please tell us, do you accept Freddy's claims about Apollo, or do you reject them?
 
JayUtah said:
The Mythbuster producers consulted an astrophysicist, an astronomer, an engineer, and a lighting director -- all professionals -- to determine how to establish a properly reflective lunar surface and to confirm that they had done so. These people are all named in the credits.
Click to expand...

I did not know that, thanks for sharing it. I should point out that it doesn't negate what I posted. If anything it amplifies it.


JU said:
It could be attributed to any of things we know they did wrong plus any of the things they might have done wrong and hidden behind their sloppy disclosure of method.
Click to expand...

Indeed, there are too many variables. And since they don't share all that information, we might never know what exactly they did wrong.



JU said:
I think you mean "cinematography." Filmography is the cinema version of a bibliography.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the correction.

JU said:
I'm enough of an expert in photography and photo analysis to see most of their mistakes and deliberate misrepresentations. Another error is blacking out their photographer. It makes sense in a way because the scale of their model would lead you to interpret that as a confounding variable. In their case it may be an innocent mistake. However in this case ironically it leads to a less faithful reproduction. Armstrong was standing in full sunlight when he took that picture, and was actually quite close to Aldrin. (Don't be fooled by the wide-angle lens; it tends to amplify distance along the line of sight.) The space suit has a non-geometric albedo of something like 0.8, so it's going to be highly reflective. It's meant to be. And that contributes to the lighting environment of the Aldrin egress photos. They needed to have accounted for that in their reproduction.
Click to expand...

There is that, although I don't know why they had the guy in there at all. If they were really that concerned about the camera man contaminating the results, they could have had the camera rigged on a tripod or an arm. Something, anything.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
To the viewers-

When reading Jay Windley's posts, take into consideration this response of his...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990

to this.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907
Click to expand...

Thanks for providing this, FF, I can clearly see in it how fully Jay demolishes a point you made. Having spent time as a process engineer and having two science undergrad degrees, I can appreciate how on point Jay's comment is on this being an engineering and not a science question. Of course, since I disagree with you, I must of course in your eyes be a shill. :boggled:
 
abaddon said:
1. No aperature or speed data.
2. Wrong film stock.
3. Omission or reflection from Armstrong.

and

4. It's from Aulis.

Oh yeah, the DOF in the Aulis shots also raises an eyebrow.
Click to expand...


5. Their scaled terrain model is too bumpy and jagged compared to the Apollo 11 photo.
 
SpitfireIX said:
As Jay was expanding on a question I posed to you, which you ignored, I'll re-pose my question, and I request that you answer. What part of "this is an engineering question, rather than a science question" did you not understand?

And as for the "viewers," I think, as this thread has been split, that it's time we asked the lurkers to weigh in again. So, lurkers, please tell us, do you accept Freddy's claims about Apollo, or do you reject them?
Click to expand...

Rejected utterly. I've lurked in this thread quite a bit, but rarely posted, because my expertise lies in computing, which hasn't really been mentioned in connection with the Apollo hoax claims. Nevertheless, even with my lack of expertise in relevant fields, I can see that Freddy's arguments lack merit due to a lack of concrete evidence.
 
LSSBB said:
Thanks for providing this, FF, I can clearly see in it how fully Jay demolishes a point you made. Having spent time as a process engineer and having two science undergrad degrees, I can appreciate how on point Jay's comment is on this being an engineering and not a science question. Of course, since I disagree with you, I must of course in your eyes be a shill. :boggled:
Click to expand...

Didn't you know? Everybody that doesn't agree with EXACTLY what he thinks is a shill. His ego won't allow it any other way. That or his programming. I still think he's a bot.
 
Mudcat said:
I think the person is trying too hard to confirm a conspiracy took place when it didn't.



Of course these nut jobs would claim that, the MythBusters came up with a result the nuts didn't want. I'm sure that they got the 'proper' results, the nuts would have no qualms even if the MythBusters obviously cheated (like the nuts did) to do so.



This is all information that the MythBusters had on hand, and since they're not idiots they took it into account.

[qimg]http://www.aulis.com/mythbusters/MythBusters18.jpg[/qimg]


So why such a difference when the nuts did it?

I'm no expert in photography or filmography, but I'd wager its the lighting source used in place of the sun. Too dim, too far away, wrong angle.

It could be something different about the camera as well, wrong lens, wrong film, wrong exposure, or a dozen other things.
Click to expand...

Seems pretty clear to me.

The photograph on the left, why aren't I seeing light on the surface in the foreground? It looks very much like their light source was focused on to the terrain BEHIND the model astronaut. That leaves almost nothing falling on the useful reflective area IN FRONT of him.
 
I believe it is at this point in any "fake appollo" discussion we are obliged to reference Mitchell and Webb doing their skit where the cost of fakery is compared to actually reaching the moon and the difference is the catering.

Normal service (or as normal as can be expected) may now be resumed.
 
You mean a science teacher like me who explained to you how it would be impossible to sieve an entire set's worth of sand?
Click to expand...
I and a number of other engineers who have experience handling aggregates said this was a practical impossibility.
Click to expand...

Here's the footage in question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK3R2en4p_8

The pro-Apollo people say that, since there's no dust cloud, it must be a vacuum. I say that it's possible that the substance in which the rover is driving is large-grained dust-free sand which would not raise a dust cloud.

Jay Windley and the rest of the pro-Apollo posters maintain that it would be impossible to transport and place dust-free sand without the moving and placing of the sand's causing enough erosion to create enough dust to raise a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

They're saying that dust-free sand couldn't be carefully loaded into a dump truck and driven to the site and placed without causing enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. That is laughable; the sand would have to be beaten and beaten and beaten to create that much dust.

I've told a few people with backgrounds in geology about the position of the pro-Apollo people on this issue and they all said they were wrong. One of them thought it was so silly that he laughed.

The position of the pro-Apollo camp on this issue is ludicrous.

Here's a relevant video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc
 
Your Magic Sand theory has been exhaustively discussed. Your misrepresentation and misuse of geologists has been exhaustively discussed.
Click to expand...
All of the people I talk to with relevant backgrounds think that your position is laughably funny and the pro-Apollo posters say all of the people with relevant backgrounds that they consult say that my position is laughably funny. I think it's so clear that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would not create enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over that no viewers have any doubts and need to consult any experts to clear up their doubt.

If there are any viewers with doubts, I urge you to go to the physics department of a university near you and find a professor's office. Look at the office hours posted on the door and go back and show him this issue. I guarantee he will think the position of the pro-Apollo camp is laughable. This is really a basic issue.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
Here's the footage in question.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK3R2en4p_8

The pro-Apollo people say that, since there's no dust cloud, it must be a vacuum. I say that it's possible that the substance in which the rover is driving is large-grained dust-free sand which would not raise a dust cloud.

Jay Windley and the rest of the pro-Apollo posters maintain that it would be impossible to transport and place dust-free sand without the moving and placing of the sand's causing enough erosion to create enough dust to raise a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

They're saying that dust-free sand couldn't be carefully loaded into a dump truck and driven to the site and placed without causing enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. That is laughable; the sand would have to be beaten and beaten and beaten to create that much dust.

I've told a few people with backgrounds in geology about the position of the pro-Apollo people on this issue and they all said they were wrong. One of them thought it was so silly that he laughed.

The position of the pro-Apollo camp on this issue is ludicrous.

Here's a relevant video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S30XLds5gc
Click to expand...

FF, do you have any proof, any whatsoever, of a conspiracy and cover up? Sworn affidavits, verifiable money trails to get all this faking stuff, verifiable pictures of the fakery in progress, anything that would be acceptable to prove a conspiracy in a court of law or before congress?

If not, I recommend that you read this article:The Myth of Sunk Costs. Take it to heart, maybe even do some more research on it's subject. It's not to late to make a real difference in the world.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
All of the people I talk to with relevant backgrounds...
Click to expand...

Geologists do not have relevant backgrounds, for the reasons already discussed. Further, the geologists thought you were nuts. All the people you have talked to with relevant backgrounds have unanimously repudiated you. You simply dismiss them because they do not fit your criteria for an honest witness.

If there are any viewers with doubts, I urge you to go to the physics department of a university near you and find a professor's office.
Click to expand...

Several people did that. You dismissed them, again on the grounds that you pre-rejected them as liars because they did not agree with you.

We've been through all this many times before.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
All of the people I talk to with relevant backgrounds think that your position is laughably funny and the pro-Apollo posters say all of the people with relevant backgrounds that they consult say that my position is laughably funny. I think it's so clear that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would not create enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over that no viewers have any doubts and need to consult any experts to clear up their doubt.

If there are any viewers with doubts, I urge you to go to the physics department of a university near you and find a professor's office. Look at the office hours posted on the door and go back and show him this issue. I guarantee he will think the position of the pro-Apollo camp is laughable. This is really a basic issue.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, every scientist I know rejects your moon hoax claims. That includes myself.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
All of the people I talk to with relevant backgrounds think that your position is laughably funny and the pro-Apollo posters say all of the people with relevant backgrounds that they consult say that my position is laughably funny. I think it's so clear that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would not create enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over that no viewers have any doubts and need to consult any experts to clear up their doubt.

If there are any viewers with doubts, I urge you to go to the physics department of a university near you and find a professor's office. Look at the office hours posted on the door and go back and show him this issue. I guarantee he will think the position of the pro-Apollo camp is laughable. This is really a basic issue.
Click to expand...

I'll let you know what she says around 11:00AM central.
 
Last edited:
Ok. Both Dr. Hill & Dr. Kern think you're wrong FF. Now what?
 
Ok. Both Dr. Hill & Dr. Kern think you're wrong FF. Now what?
Click to expand...
You talk as if your word were proof. It's not proof as you might be lying.

I maintain that this is such a basic, self-evident issue that nobody has to ask an expert to confirm it. If anyone wants to, I guarantee the objective expert will find the pro-Apollo camp's position laughable.

Here's an example of billowing dust in atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6FH7x0wB_I
(4:30 time mark)

Your position is that, if some dust-free sand is transported and placed, the erosion caused by transporting and placing it will be enough to create enough dust to cause dust clouds when it's driven over. The fact that this is wrong is very self-evident. The sand would have to be beaten with sledge hammers for hours and hours to create that much dust. Any twelve-year-old could explain this.

You people aren't fooling anybody. This issue is simply too basic.
 
Last edited:
FatFreddy88 said:
You talk as if your word were proof. It's not proof as you might be lying.

I maintain that this is such a basic, self-evident issue that nobody has to ask an expert to confirm it. If anyone wants to, I guarantee the objective expert will find the pro-Apollo camp's position laughable.

Here's an example of billowing dust in atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6FH7x0wB_I
(4:30 time mark)

Your position is that, if some dust-free sand is transported and placed, the erosion caused by transporting and placing it will be enough to create enough dust to cause dust clouds when it's driven over. The fact that this is wrong is very self-evident. The dust would have to be beaten with sledge hammers for hours and hours to create that much dust. Any twelve-year-old could explain this.

You people aren't fooling anybody. This issue is simply too basic.
Click to expand...

It's not that there isn't as much dust as in that race video. It's that there isn't ANY dust left hanging.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
You talk as if your word were proof. It's not proof as you might be lying.

I maintain that this is such a basic, self-evident issue that nobody has to ask an expert to confirm it. If anyone wants to, I guarantee the objective expert will find the pro-Apollo camp's position laughable.

Here's an example of billowing dust in atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6FH7x0wB_I
(4:30 time mark)

Your position is that, if some dust-free sand is transported and placed, the erosion caused by transporting and placing it will be enough to create enough dust to cause dust clouds when it's driven over. The fact that this is wrong is very self-evident. The dust would have to be beaten with sledge hammers for hours and hours to create that much dust. Any twelve-year-old could explain this.

You people aren't fooling anybody. This issue is simply too basic.
Click to expand...

What proof would you accept that I showed them your position as posted in this thread & they disagreed with you?

Eta: Also, your position is now that dust would have to be beaten with sledgehammers to create... dust?
 
Last edited:
FatFreddy88 said:
All of the people I talk to with relevant backgrounds think that your position is laughably funny
Click to expand...

Who are "all the people" you've talked to? You cited two people on some random geology forum, one of whom sort of agreed with you. The other one said your hoax idea was "stupid" and said you were "putting words in [his] mouth".

Why are you still hiding from these questions and misrepresenting your "evidence"?

FatFreddy88 said:
If there are any viewers with doubts, I urge you to go to the physics department of a university near you and find a professor's office. Look at the office hours posted on the door and go back and show him this issue. I guarantee he will think the position of the pro-Apollo camp is laughable.
Click to expand...

This has already happened and you have explicitly been proven wrong. This has been pointed out to you many times and you are lying about your "guarantee".

You are not only willfully ignorant and incompetent, but you are transparently dishonest as documented above. This is hardly surprising, though, since
according to your criteria, you are only pretending to mean what you say, you hypocrite.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
You talk as if your word were proof. It's not proof as you might be lying.

I maintain that this is such a basic, self-evident issue that nobody has to ask an expert to confirm it. If anyone wants to, I guarantee the objective expert will find the pro-Apollo camp's position laughable.

Here's an example of billowing dust in atmosphere.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6FH7x0wB_I
(4:30 time mark)

Your position is that, if some dust-free sand is transported and placed, the erosion caused by transporting and placing it will be enough to create enough dust to cause dust clouds when it's driven over. The fact that this is wrong is very self-evident. The dust would have to be beaten with sledge hammers for hours and hours to create that much dust. Any twelve-year-old could explain this.

You people aren't fooling anybody. This issue is simply too basic.
Click to expand...

You're not in a position to prove anything. What you are doing there is telling people what their argument is and telling that they're wrong, without having any kind of basis for either side of it.

Your so called issue is a fictitious one entirely of your own making. Run along now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom