Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 55

Thread: **Load of Crap**

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    310

    **Load of Crap**

    best quote I have ever heard ....concerning PX....

    Phil on Unscrewed....lol He's great!

    Phil your friggin great! lol Laughed my arse of....love the way you handle this crap....

    brilliant

    kudos to you

    **I read it on the web, it must be true**


    lol i like how sargant handled it...he's a good personality...to funny....love his sarcasm

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    4,183
    Yeah, I just saw the show.. good job Phil 8)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,284
    Ditto!

    But i did think they should of done more stuff on the actual debunking stuff.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    310
    humphrey I agree....I planned on it being like half the show...


    he was robbed

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    398
    So it sounds like you guys think he did a good job! What parts of the Apollo hoax / PX "theory" did he talk about? (i did not see it due to my parents deaming the show inappropiate)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    310
    well with px.....

    he explained it..as the subject of my post....lol


    with the lunar hoax....it was more Sargant asking him (sarcastically) about the waving flag, the lack of dust from the lander....etc....

    ...lol I laughed so hard .....Sargant said "We had Mark Hazelwood on here who is one of the PX geniuses".....Now at this time i was laughing ...that I swear Phil replied....something sarcastic about it....wish i heard it....


    Oh and then one of the comments sargant made...was (sarcastic) about the PX'r warning humanity of PX...and being saviors while Phil debunked....
    It was a joke...but it was hysterical to hear....

    It fit the flow of Unscrewed though...the whole thing...sarcasm....it was relaxed..fun....I enjoyed it....

    remember if you read it on the internet, it must be true .


    lol

  7. #7
    Guest
    I don't suppose there's an audiofile of the show anywhere? For free? I'd love to hear Phil give the PXers the carcasm they deserve.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,252
    I taped Phil's segment - now if it weren't for that copyright law....

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    346
    anybody with a tape (or TiVo 8) ) care to type up a transcript? Should be a good read, I'm sure

    Krill

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    4,183
    Here, I 'll do it from memory:

    The host (Martin?) will be host: BA will be BA:

    Host: blah blah blah... We never landed on the moon! Or did we? Dr. Phil Plait is here to tell us the truth. Also, a few shows back we had the genuis Dr. Hazelwood on to talk about planet X, blah blah blah...

    BA: Genuis? Not the word I would use...

    Host: What about his theories and the lunar hoax?

    BA: I will use a very scientific term to describe it, the term is... load of crap.

    Host: OK, well what about all these moon hoax theories... I heard we never landed on the moon and it is because the flag was waving.. its waving all over the place (Martin is slightly spastic,... like Tom Greene without his meds). I mean, why was the flag waving around!!! Look, here's a picture!!

    BA: Well, every time you see a movie of the flag waving, there is an astronaut shaking the flag pole [BA preteneds to wring Sibrel's neck.. I mean plant a flagpole, see: here] so, the flag is moving because of that...

    Host: But what about this picture!!! No one is touching the flag here??!!?!?

    BA: Well, first of all its a picture, so you can't even tell if the flag is moving...

    Host: (he interrupts a lot) Yeah but it looks like...

    BA: Well, it has been folded up for a long time, and it's made of nylon... I know a lot of people out there are still wearing polyester, and you know that the folds stay forever...

    Host: What about the stars, I hear you should be able to see the stars because there is no gravity!!

    BA: [I can't remeber what he said here, in fact, I think this was the first point, not the second, but my memory isn't perfect]

    Host: Well, how come all the dust wasn't blown away by the rocket landing? How could they make footprints?@?!@?!!!!????!?!?

    BA: [Here he gave his flour explanation... it's on the webpage. No air means dust doesn't travel very far]

    I think that was about all the time they gave him... and Martin is a spas and interupts a lot...

    Oh yeah, at the beggining, BA said that since Martin and the girl co-host are both single and looking, maybe they should date each other. Then he commented on how horrified she looked at the prospect.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    641
    [Here he gave his flour explanation... it's on the webpage. No air means dust doesn't travel very far]
    interesting. i thought no air meant less gravity. and when there is less gravity things put in motion tend to keep in motion. that is why the astronauts could jump much farther than on Earth (though i havent seen any good example of any astronaut doing that on the moon).
    so exactly what is that "flour explanation" again?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,022
    Quote Originally Posted by Outcast
    [Here he gave his flour explanation... it's on the webpage. No air means dust doesn't travel very far]
    interesting. i thought no air meant less gravity[....]
    I hope that was a typo, and not a belief that removing air decreases the aceleration due to gravity.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,311
    Quote Originally Posted by John Jones
    Quote Originally Posted by Outcast
    [Here he gave his flour explanation... it's on the webpage. No air means dust doesn't travel very far]
    interesting. i thought no air meant less gravity[....]
    I hope that was a typo, and not a belief that removing air decreases the aceleration due to gravity.
    Think he was pointing out the result of less gravity is less air....

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    4,183
    Outcast, at first I thought, "How would less air cause less gravity?" But then I thought, "Maybe Outcast means that if there was lower gravity, there would be less air.... I hope that is what he meant." In any case, things in motion will only stay in motion to the extent of the energy given them. In an earth environment, with air, dust stays in motion far longer because the air can form currents. In a moon like environment, with no air, but lower gravity, the dust will fall slower, but it will not travel very far laterally, because there are no air currents. Here is the link, from the webpage... http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#dust

    In fact, I urge anyone who thinks we didn't go to the moon to take a look at the whole page, there is a lot of good stuff on that page, even if it is just an appendix to the board :wink:

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    4,183
    BTW, there was moer to the interview... at one point Martin asked about all the planet X stuff and the BA said that it doesn't exist [in the form posited by Hazelwood, lieder, et. al.]. That may be where the 'load of crap' statement came. All in all, it was much too short, but that is the unscrewed format.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    19
    Outcast wrote:

    that is why the astronauts could jump much farther than on Earth (though i havent seen any good example of any astronaut doing that on the moon).
    Actually, we do get quite a good example of that when you watch the videos of the astronauts on the moon. The EVA suit that they wore weighs 183lbs here on Earth, the moon has a gravity of only 1/6th of Earth. When you see Aldrin doing his "Kangaroo hop" on the moon on the Apollo 11 mission, it becomes clear that it would be impossible to hop around on Earth in such a manner wearing a 183 pound suit. You also see the effect of less gravity when watching the video of the astronauts driving the rover. The vehicle's motion is distinctly affected by the existence of less gravity, you can also see the effect in the moon dust ejected from the tires.

    As for the dust, the moon still has gravity so the dust will fall back to the surface. Mass affects gravity, not whether there is an atmosphere or not. Now, an object falling through an atmosphere will experience resistance and friction, in that respect "air" will affect the velocity of an object moving through an atmosphere, but the gravity remains the same.

    Glenn

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    346
    interesting. i thought no air meant less gravity. and when there is less gravity things put in motion tend to keep in motion. that is why the astronauts could jump much farther than on Earth (though i havent seen any good example of any astronaut doing that on the moon).
    so exactly what is that "flour explanation" again?
    er, no air means less gravity? I hope that's a typo...

    whatever. The behavior of the dust is not so much influenced by the difference in gravity as the absence of air.

    Hold a feather and a ball bearing in either hand at arms length in front of you, and let go of both at the same time. The ball bearing will fall straight to the ground, but the feather will fall very slowly because the air resistance is significant compared with its weight.

    Now try the same trick on the moon. Both will hit the surface at exactly the same time. In the case of the ball bearing, that will be quite a bit slower, but in the case of the feather very much faster.

    Ok, now do the whole thing again, but this time with a handful of flour in one hand and a handful of ball bearings in the other. On the earth, the flour doesn't behave like a handful of ball bearings. It just makes a cloud that takes a long time to settle. If there was any wind, it would settle over a wide area. This is for the same reason: the air resistance on each particle is very significant compared to its weight.

    Again, same thing on the moon. This time the handful of flour does behave like a handful of ball bearings.

    Krill

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,504
    [quote="Outcast"]
    i thought no air meant less gravity.
    WOW...Your ready to accept Sitchin's "word" about "Niburu" yet your grasp of science is tenuous to say the least.

    that is why the astronauts could jump much farther than on Earth (though i havent seen any good example of any astronaut doing that on the moon).
    Maybe you should actually watch a Moon walk or two before you inform us of your opinion.
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    3,284
    Have the HB'ers ever said they made the studio into a vacume, so that si why you see the effects of the moondust the way you do?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    4,933
    Uh, I think it says out on the Forum Index that the "Lunar Conspiracies" BB "is the ONLY forum" where you discuss the apollo hoax.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    4,183
    we aer not only discussing the apollo hoax, but if you want, we can move this there

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,504
    Quote Originally Posted by A.DIM
    Uh, I think it says out on the Forum Index that the "Lunar Conspiracies" BB "is the ONLY forum" where you discuss the apollo hoax.
    Hey, A.DIM...Who died and made you PHIL?

    Quote Originally Posted by musashi
    we aer not only discussing the apollo hoax, but if you want, we can move this there
    That's a marvelous idea! I'd love to see A.DIM, Outcast, even HankSolo come to the Lunar Conspiracies forum and tell us how the Moon landings were faked. Boy oh boy, that would be fun!!
    The facts, gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching. Isaac Asimov

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,022
    Quote Originally Posted by A.DIM
    Uh, I think it says out on the Forum Index that the "Lunar Conspiracies" BB "is the ONLY forum" where you discuss the apollo hoax.
    So why aren't you confining your remarks like the above to the " Lunar Conspiracies" BB?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    19
    BoredHugeKrill wrote:
    The behavior of the dust is not so much influenced by the difference in gravity as the absence of air.
    Wait a moment. I know what you were trying to explain here with Newton's First Law. But, I'm going to disagree with you on a minor note. Gravity is still the major influence when talking about the space dust as we are here. Gravity exists whether or not an atmosphere is present on the moon or here on Earth. It determines whether the dust will fall to the ground or not, atmosphere will not, it can determine the rate of fall but not the direction (other than wind currents of course).

    In the absence of gravity those dust particles would continue on the original trajectory and velocity. The absence of air alone will not make the dust fall back to the moon. Eliminate gravity and unless some other outside force is applied the dust would simply continue merrily along its original path. Add atmosphere and remove the gravity and the particles would be freely suspended in that atmosphere rather than settle to the moon's surface. So with the elimination of gravity the dust would simply never settle back to the moon's surface unless it was already heading that way.

    Glenn

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    641
    i was loosely defining the properties of the atmosphere on the Moon. no air and less gravity. is that not true?

    That's a marvelous idea! I'd love to see A.DIM, Outcast, even HankSolo come to the Lunar Conspiracies forum and tell us how the Moon landings were faked. Boy oh boy, that would be fun!!
    humm. another humourous character. you're funny, i wonder where on my text did you read that "the Moon landings were faked"??
    i guess some people are thirsty for blood around here.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    641
    No air means dust doesn't travel very far
    this is the sentence that i question. maybe no air means dust doesnt travel very far, but in a atmosphere where there is less gravity, just by the logic of how things behave in space, i think that any momentum applied to that dust would make it go much further than on Earth.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,489
    I don't think it's wise to describe the behavior of dust on the moon so simply. On earth dust will aerosolize when disturbed. This puts dust at the whim of the fluid dynamics of an ambient fluid. Flow in this fluid may carry dust a long way, or it may not. Dust in a velocity state will find itself influenced by this fluid, whereas on the moon it will follow a purely ballistic trajectory.

    If you're talking about dust disturbed by the LM exhaust, the basic fluid dynamics dictates a low, flat trajectory radiating from the exhaust impingement point. In a vacuum the exhaust will carry the dust according to fluid dynamics until it disperses and loses sufficient density to do so. The particle transitions from an aerosol to a ballistic projectile at that point, but continues the low, flat trajectory (generally). Where the flow becomes chaotic (say, from a rock sticking up into the redirected exhaust) the particle path becomes chaotic. This may launch particles upward or on other trajectories that don't necessarily correspond to the bulk of the plume.

    In an atmosphere, the plume would interact with the air and form chaotic flow at the plume-air boundary. It also forms chaotic flow as the plume interacts with obstacles and other solid objects. The dust would greatly aerosolize and reveal the patterns of this flow. It was also remain in aerosol for quite some time after the engine shut off.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    4,933
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F.
    Quote Originally Posted by A.DIM
    Uh, I think it says out on the Forum Index that the "Lunar Conspiracies" BB "is the ONLY forum" where you discuss the apollo hoax.
    Hey, A.DIM...Who died and made you PHIL?
    Hey R.A.F..... no one.
    I was merely pointing out what it says on the forum index.

    That's a marvelous idea! I'd love to see A.DIM, Outcast, even HankSolo come to the Lunar Conspiracies forum and tell us how the Moon landings were faked. Boy oh boy, that would be fun!!
    If I felt the landings were faked you'd certainly have seen me there long ago.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    4,933
    Quote Originally Posted by John Jones
    Quote Originally Posted by A.DIM
    Uh, I think it says out on the Forum Index that the "Lunar Conspiracies" BB "is the ONLY forum" where you discuss the apollo hoax.
    So why aren't you confining your remarks like the above to the " Lunar Conspiracies" BB?
    Because this thread was in the Planet X Forum. :-?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    346
    Glenn,
    that wasn't what I said. I didn't say (and didn't mean) that air was a greater influence than gravity.

    What I said was that the most important thing in the behavior change of dust from the earth to the moon is not so much the difference in gravity as the absence of air.

    I stand by that comment, in that what I meant was that although the moon has lower gravity, which scales the observations, the absence of air fundamentally modifies the behavior

    Krill

Similar Threads

  1. Image won't load
    By starkma in forum Forum Introductions and Feedback
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 2012-Jun-01, 09:58 PM
  2. Get a load of this
    By blueshift in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2008-May-16, 02:44 AM
  3. What's My Load?
    By farmerjumperdon in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 2007-May-15, 02:23 AM
  4. More crap?
    By Barraged in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 2004-Mar-19, 07:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •