Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathan
The dust only is around 1' deep.. how do you think the huge amounts of energy, in a vacuum, would cause a deeper dent in the DUST than the 1' it actually has?
That is all I am saying... it gets even less detectable if you make the range of dust the blast caused to change bigger... there is only a certain amount of dust there, the footprints localize the changes and cause actual prints that light causes shadows with... Without those, you get no 3rd image on a photo, thus you can not really SEE it either..
|
Nathan, you are clearly looking for ways to justify this for yourself. It's nothing short of ignoring the forest for the trees. The crater would have noticeable size. That's the bottom line. Now, I understand the NASA reps coming with ridiculous versions of why there would be no crater, cause they must do something to cover their asses. They are in "all or nothing" tight spot so they will take any measures to cover up their lies, even at a price of winning the bullshit awards. But when a smart guy who (I assume) is not associated with NASA makes himself look like a fool justifying this non sense, that makes wander what the heck you?re on?