Replies

>>>...the blast crater should not be "just little ones".

So, How big do you think it would be?

If it was bigger than the lander, the lander would have fallen into it. It didn't do that or they would not have been able to take off again.

They set up a tv camera that stayed there and caught the take off of the luner module. The lander was standing level over what would be the "blast crater". The bottom part is still there.

Not so much deep Dan, the silt is not that fine to much over 6 inches, so they say. The evidence of a blast, or let's call it a "thrust crater" would be considerably larger than the module. Depth would not be as noticable as the "drifting". In all the photos, I see rocks, small and larger near the lander. None of them have drifts behind them. I work in enough dust daily to know if you blow dust, it will collect behind objects that do not move with the air flow. In comparison, it would be like a large stone in a field after a snow storm. There is evidence of erosion infront of and along the side of the stone, and a significant build up behind the stone.

The elements on the moon do to the apparent gravity alone, tells me there should be something...anything. The photos I saw right here at FR over the years in this debate, and any others I have seen else where, show no evidence of ~~air~~ er, I mean gas movement from the ships thrusters upon landing.

This is the onl;y thing keeping me interested in this debate. I would love to be proved wrong on it.