MoonFaker: No Crater Addendum: Critique #03: Soft Landing

[satweavers]

A detail I've tried again and again to explain to Hoaxers is about the pebbles beneath the engine bell. The engine's exhaust is blowing dust and pebbles away right up the the very last, fading gasp of thrust. It cannot blow away ALL the pebbles and dust, because it has been uncovering new pebbles and dust all along... right up to the last gasp. What you see are pebbles that were uncovered, but not blown away by the very last whisper of exhaust... as I exhaust my last wisp of patience.

[philwebb59]

@satweavers That's the trouble with dirt. The deeper you dig, the more dirt you uncover.

[ViperWK]

/watch?v=e_ZCXHS1EVA&feature=r­elmfu The LEM visibly starts kicking up dust at 80 feet. For this to occur the thrust would either have to be reasonably strong, more narrower than thought, or the ground surface was extremely fine and powdery. At 24 feet the trust is literally ripping the shit out of the ground. They call "contact" while dust is "still" steaming violently out of the bottom.You can theorise or calculate all you want but the LEM kicked up alot of dust and did so while it was landed.

[philwebb59]

@ViperWK The thrust was 11kN or less or they couldn't drop. The "plume" in a vacuum is actually wider than shown. The regolith was fine. That's the point. The lower they got, the more "dust" they "kicked up." They were also moving horizontally, so the dust constantly came from different areas. Aldrin announced "contact" when the contact probes touched and the indicator light came on. On Apollo 14, Antaries displaced 8 metric tons of regolith from a 6-inch deep depression. There's your crater.

[ViperWK]

@philwebb59 I understand rocket plumes are wider in space. That's why this is so odd.. The LEM's are seen kicking up dust at 80-120 feet when the PSI forcing on the ground "should" of been extremely low at that point. On visually observing the plume's they don't appear to look wide. If you observe the radial stream's of dust coming from underneath the LEMs, the streams seem to be more "intense" and centrally "focused" . Note the converging intersecting angles of the streams.

[philwebb59]

@ViperWK #1 If you look at the Apollo 17 lunar liftoff, watch?v=iziumcklDbM, after the initial spray of partially unspent fuel exiting the nozzle during ignition, you don't see a plume. Likewise, you would not see the plume or any effect of the plume from the LMDE looking out the LM window during descent, except for its encounter with lunar surface material.

[ViperWK]

@philwebb59 I'm aware of that.. My reference to the plume was when it's seen mixing with the lunar dust. Of course the plume itself is not visible but its shape and width is evident when it mixes with the dust. The streams of dust seem to source from directly "under" the LEM , and with some intensity, rather than being light and dispersed away from the centreline of the LEM which is what would occur if the plume was wide and had a low PSI pressure... 

[philwebb59]

@ViperWK I think I just touched on this in a previous comment. But, as you get farther from the LM, the volume of exhaust spreads out more and more. So, the density of the exhaust decreases the farther out you go. Unlike on Earth, where you have an atmosphere you have to push out of the way, that causes additional moving particles, and billowing, due to multiple collisions, in a vacuum, the particles simply move in one direction unless acted upon by another moving particle.

[philwebb59]

@ViperWK #2 Assuming the entire force spreads out from a 54-inch diameter nozzle to a 65-inch diameter area on the lunar surface is worse than integrating the pressure over a 150-inch diameter area (out to the landing pads) where there was still a noticeable effect (erosion marks) on the lunar surface.

[ViperWK]

@philwebb59 .. If the plume was just 65" diameter you would still see large radial marks regardless due to the LEM coming in from higher up, or from the lunar matter being thrown sideways from the centre of the source. What ever the diameter of the plume is/was, a large amount of dust "is" witnessed being blown quite "violently" from underneath the LEM's when they landed, and in a relatively "tight" area from the last 20 feet of descent to after the point of contact..

[philwebb59]

@ViperWK I calculated 8 metric tons of "dust" was blown away from under the LM. From the photos, you see erosion marks all the way out to the landing pads, 12.5 ft. 8 metric tons, over a 12.5 ft diameter area. Is that large enough over a tight enough area for you?

[philwebb59]

@ViperWK #1 Of course, pressure is not what moves things. Force is. The only reason that anything on the surface moves is because molecules of spent fuel come in contact with surface material in an elastic collision. Then you have spent fuel and moving "dust" colliding with more surface material. I don't know what you mean by " visually observing the plumes." You never see the plume and you cannot see directly under the LM from the window.

[philwebb59]

@ViperWK #2 Since they were slowing down, the LM was tilted back to slow forward movement. The "dust" would pick up as you get farther from the center. As for the "streams" being more intense at close distance to the LM, the "cloud" of particles moving away from the LM gets wider and covers more area the farther out you go, so the density of particles would, of course, get thinner.

[ViperWK]

@philwebb59 Could you possibly direct me to a photo that shows the 6 inch crater in Apollo 14 mission.. I haven't seen this.. ?

[philwebb59]

@ViperWK A good photo of the bowl shaped crater under the Apollo 14 LM is AS14-66-9261. Another good photo is AS11-40-5920 that shows a 3-inch ledge of regolith trapped under a landing pad of Apollo 11. I used this photo to calculate that, at a minimum, 8 metric tons of regolith was eroded away under the LM. See watch?v=yDs6-3Yt0Yk&t=6m10s

[ViperWK]

@philwebb59 With AS14-66-9261, are you referring to the small hole under the nozzle (a little to left) ?. The ledge of soil (under the pad) that your refereeing wasn't due to the blast. It was due to the LEM moving sideways just as it made contact with the ground. The pads slightly bulldozed the dust. If that soil came from the blast we would see dust "ontop" of the pad asell. Also if you look as the pads on the other side, the soil is piled up on the "outer" edge of them, not the inner. ?

[philwebb59]

@ViperWK I am referring to the entire area under the LM in the AP14 photo . The ledge I refer to in the AP11 photo is due to erosion. You see erosion marks along side the dust. If it had been bulldozed up, the pad wouldn't be higher than the surrounding surface. You would be more likely to see dust on top of the pad if the dust had been bulldozed up. If the particles are moving, they keep moving. You would not expect to see particles stop and fall onto the pad. Soil piled on an outer edge?

[ViperWK]

@philwebb59 If the ledge of soil was caused by blown soil kicked up from the engine the soil would be piled right up to the the top edge of the pad. Also the piled soil would exhibit radial marks which it doesn't. It doesn't look blown at all and appears to be churned up. When Bulldozers plow into soil they don't ride up ontop of it, rather they just plow straight through it. In this photo you'll see the other pads upload.wikimedia(DotOrg)/wikip­edia/commons/4/49/LEM-OnTheMoo­n-Hires.jpg

[philwebb59]

@ViperWK Ah! I see where I confused you. The composite you found was stitched together from a set of Apollo 14 photos containing AS14-66-9258, which clearly shows a pile of "dirt" plowed up by the horizontal motion of the pad. Antaries slid a bit. But, I said, "AS11-40-5920 shows a 3-inch ledge of regolith trapped under a landing pad of Apollo 11." Different mission. In that photo, it looks like the landing pad held the regolith in compression as exhaust streamed around it.

[ViperWK]

@philwebb59 Sorry, my bad.. I kept thinking the 2 photo's you mentioned before were both of Apollo 14.. Either way the Apollo photo 14 photo i quoted clearly shows churned/plowed soil which "billows out" from under the base, not smoothed blasted soil pushed up against it. Two of its pads don't have soil on their inner edge's (as they should) rather on their "outer" edges. Regarding Apollo 11, this also shows the exact same phenomenon, with ledges showing on the "outer" edges of two pads.

[philwebb59]

@ViperWK The photo of Apollo 14 is consistent with the engine shutting off before the pads touched and the LM then slid into place. I never suggested that the exhaust blew regolith up against any pad. What mechanism would make the regolith stop and pile up on the inner edges of the pads, when it should keep on going around the pads?

[ViperWK]

@philwebb59 Sorry, i was chasing the wrong rabbit there. When you said the ledges were caused by erosion i thought you meant this was due to the soil under the nozzle being eroded and then blowing up against the side of the pads causing those mounds. In theory soil could hit the rim of the pad then bounce to the ground near the contact point of the pad, then compoundly start piling up, much like say when you see sand piled up against one side of power pole after a sand storm..

[ViperWK]

@philwebb59 Just to clarify, so what your saying is that the LEM pads were touching the ground and the engine blast proceeded to remove all of the surrounding soil from around the pads leaving a small cluster of original soil still under the pads. Sort of like how a Mesa is formed (in principle) ? Or say if you went and put your foot into a sand box, washed the sand away with a hose but you would still be left with a clump of sand under your shoe and you would appear to be standing higher ?

[ViperWK]

@philwebb59 Here is a good photo of the Apollo 11 LEM.. freewallpaperpic(dotcom)/viewe­r/wallpaper.php?/apollo11/1600­/Apollo11_5927_NASA It clearly also shows two pads having soil piled up on their "outer" edges, consistent with a sliding motion of the LEM . Regarding that AS11-40-5920 photo, it shows churned up soil that billows/bulges out from the base of the pad, consistent with a plowing action.. If you look behind the pad you can see where this pad had scraped the surface..?

[philwebb59]

@ViperWK #1 Okay? I went to that link and got a "We love free-wallpaper-ic" advertisement. From the description it's probably AS11-40-5927. You're looking at the south (left) and east (right) struts. The pads are both slightly hidden by the slight ridge in the foreground. The north strut (the one in AS11-40-5920) is on the opposite side of the LM. You can clearly see that the north pad is resting on top of the ledge.

[philwebb59]

@ViperWK #2 If you really want to show me a pic of snowplowing, use AS11-40-5926. This clearly shows regolith piled up alongside the edge of the east pad. The north pad is in the top of this photo. The LM slid south, so the buildup on the inside of the north pad was minimal since the exhaust was blowing it away as the LM slid, forming the ledge.

[ViperWK]

@philwebb59 To summarise, for your theory to be correct both the Apollo 11 & 14 photo's would have to show soil piled up on the inner edge's of "every" pad. They don't. Two pads in each LEM photos "don't" show "any" soil banked up on their "inner" edge which would be impossible under your blast theory. On looking at the churned/bulging appearance of the soil, the scrap marks behind the pads, and the soil being on the same side of every pad, these soil ledges were from a plowing/scraping action.

[philwebb59]

@ViperWK For my "theory" to be correct, the Apollo 14 LM had to drop a little after the engine shut off and the Apollo 11 LM had to be on the ground before the engine shut off. Every mission was different. No two landings were exactly the same. My "theory" is not that the engine pushed regolith against any pad, but simply that regolith went flying away from the engine. The force of the exhaust did not hold dust against any pad; it blew the dust around and away from the pads.

[ViperWK]

@philwebb59 Just another quick point regarding AS11-40-5920 . When the LEM came down and made contact with the ground that pad should of sat flat on the ground and "then" been blasted with soil. If so, the soil wouldn't have been able to go "under" the pad as the pad was already firmly placed on the ground, rather the soil would have been blown against it. If a plowing action had occurred and the weight distribution on that leg was light the pad would of slightly ridden up on top of the soil.

[philwebb59]

@ViperWK Apollo 11 landed. The pads were on the ground. The LM slid south (contact probes all point north), with the engine still running. Any dust plowed up by the north pad would get blown away by the exhaust. Regolith around the pad, not being held down by the pad, would get blown away. That is what I see. The east pad has noticeable buildup of regolith on its south side. In AS11-40-5918 you can see some scouring alongside the contact probe that may have been caused by the north pad sliding,

[ViperWK]

@philwebb59 The two pads on the other side of the LEM would also have to have soil piled up on their inside edges for your theory to be correct, but they don't. The soil on those pads is piled up on their "outer" or "outside" edges. Having soil churned up on the same side of each pad is consistent with the LEM sliding along the ground when it made contact.. If you look at the picture this is clearly evident..?

[philwebb59]

@ViperWK I don't remember seeing that composite image on Wikipedia before. Thanks for the link. It does a great job of showing what I referred to as the 6-inch depression. The 8 metric tons was calculated from Apollo 11 (3-inch cylinder). If that depression is twice as deep under the nozzle, then the total mass displaced could be more than 12 metric tons. The 6-inch bowl in the Apollo 14 photo should have at least 8 metric tons eroded away.

[ViperWK]

@philwebb59 Also another quick point. The streams of dust would of likely hit the LEM's legs and/or its under carriage would of bounced ontop of the pads.. Much the same way as your theory that the dust hit the edges of the pads and bounced back..

[philwebb59]

@ViperWK #1 When did I say "dust hit the edges of the pads and bounced back?" Yes, "dust" bounced around all over the place. It was particularly hazardous on the J-missions with the extended engine bell. They were concerned that blowback could kill the engine. But even with the turbulence under the LM, once the engine shut down, the particles that were in motion would continue to evacuate that space under the LM.

[philwebb59]

@ViperWK #2 As for regolith collecting on the pad surfaces, once the particles began to move, they continued to move. So why, when they got to a reasonable distance away from the nozzle (like out to the pads), would they suddenly lose all their energy and fall back onto the pads? Shouldn't the particles continue to move away?

[philwebb59]

@nwopropaganda Apparently MB doesn't know everything. Again, I don't get your point. If you want to discuss the fact that MIT and the Crimean bounced high powered lasers off the moon in the 60's and compare that to more modern, low power LLR techniques, then check out my two videos on the subject, watch?v=oGIyS3I61j8 and watch?v=fuZiU70OcnY, then come back and 'splain to me exactly what you think those early experiments prove. Then we'll see who knows the facts and who believes fairy-tales.

[philwebb59]

@nwopropaganda Who are you talking to here? Are you talking to yourself? If so, I can't wait to see your answer.

I can't really make out what your point is, except that you are very rude. I assume that's your point, being rude. And I don't know what you're talking about when you mention anti-conspriacist and anti-conspirator. These are entirely different things you know. I don't recall using those terms in this video.

[philwebb59]

@nwopropaganda "Spoke out against?" Umm, in the 60's, Jane Fonda vehemently spoke out against the Vietnam War and she's still alive. That is a fact. If your logic is valid, the why didn't NASA assassinate Bill Kaysing? Everybody knows about the assassination attempts on Castro. They are part of the historic record. Otherwise, you wouldn't know about them. That same historic record says we went to the moon. There is not one shred of evidence that proves otherwise.

[philwebb59]

@nwopropaganda Showing off? That's the pot calling the kettle black. Regardless, Coltrane rocks. Although, as a kid I was more into fusion bands like Spyro Gyra. The James Colah Project reminds me of their sound.

As for Thomas Baron, I'm sure you've read somewhere that he was assassinated by NASA, the NSA, the CIA, or any number of official sounding acronyms. And you think that by believing the historic record, I have an unfounded belief system? LOL

[philwebb59]

@nwopropaganda So, "believing" in historical events, for which there is a large body of evidence to confirm the events actually happened, "believing" people did something that they were perfectly capable of doing, is an unfounded "religion." So, what do you call making up easily discredited claims to support a "belief" that these proven events did not occur? If you can't come up with a word, I've got a couple you can try.

BTW, if you appreciate jazz, you might want to check out my channel page.

[WavesOfTrolls]

@philwebb59 hey, explain to me why the sun looks like a giant flashlight on the pictures allegedly taken on the moon, while the picture of the sun taken on the ISS looks like a genuine sun when both were allegedly taken in outerspace. i doubt lenses would make such a huge difference.

[philwebb59]

@WavesOfTrolls #1 The online photos you see from Apollo were originally taken on transparency film then scanned. Perhaps you see the bulb in the light board that was behind the transparency film when they scanned the photo. When you fiddle with the brightness and contrast you can make all kinds of weird things pop out by virtue of the films sensitivity and the scanning process. The photos you see from ISS were taken with digital cameras and not scanned.

[WavesOfTrolls]

@philwebb59 That's one ridiculous way to explain it. It's perhaps possible that some of the fall off areas were due to photo manipulation and the irregularity of the light on the surface was due to the behavior of the light on the moon's surface, but to explain all the irregularities from the scanning process is just ludicrous. Can you even possibly demonstrate the effects it may have on a video? I highly doubt you can.

[philwebb59]

@WavesOfTrolls You were talking photos. Now you've switched to videos. The "live" videos came from a video camera, transmitted to earth, and recorded on video tape here on earth. Nothing was scanned.

Yes, quite true, most fall off areas in the magazine cover photos (also used in newspapers) were due to photo manipulation. Particularly AS11-40-5903, which was probably manipulated by a Time/Life photographer to make it more interesting. They do it all the time. It's called advertising, not a hoax.

[WavesOfTrolls]

@philwebb59 i am still talking about the photos. i am challenging you to demonstrate that what you said can be true.

[philwebb59]

@WavesOfTrolls Sure. I'll go out and buy a light table and a camera that takes transparency film, take some pictures of the sun and develop the film myself, since no one does that any more. On second thought, why don't you demonstrate I'm wrong. That would be much easier. As I said before, if there is no reason we could not send men to the moon in 1969, then there's no need to even talk about photos or videos or any of the secondary stuff that CTs (Conspiracy Thinkers) come up with.

[WavesOfTrolls]

@philwebb59 just do it lol all i am saying is that no one can know for sure. to be honest i can't prove anything. but even the scientists can't really prove it, they can just prove a limited number of things that may suggest we really went there.

[philwebb59]

@WavesOfTrolls #2 That's the last "photo" question I will answer. Rather than argue about whether the photos were taken on the moon or not, I'd rather demonstrate that there was no reason we could not put men on the moon in 1969 to take those photos.

[philwebb59]

@nwopropaganda

engine noise issue: mechanical linkages, frequency lower than mic response, air in LM.

Collin's voice: Collins remained in the CM while Armstrong and Aldrin descended to the moon.

jumping all of the board: simply responding to each fallacy individually.

answering what you asked: Does it help to repeat what you said when I answer it?

Jesus Freak: Jesus is just alright, oh yeah. (DB)

my photo: Yep.

gets some sunlight: Nope, I prefer to avoid all the harmful radiation from the sun.

[Rob260259]

@philwebb59

"harmful radiation"

Hey Phil. I just went outside! You know, in the snow and under the Sun...! It felt awesome! Billions of Solar neutrinos passed through my body. Yeah!

(are you seriously 'communicating' with this NWO-noob?)

[philwebb59]

@Rob260259 Not the snow! That's almost as bad as climbing a mountain or flying in a jet for several hours, like from Sydney to Las Vegas. You could die of cancer doing silly things like that. ;)

[Rob260259]

@philwebb59

Well... communicating with idgets like Nwopropaganda makes me think I'm dead already. Talking about death; do you think Jesus can save this disbeliever?

LOL

[philwebb59]

@Rob260259 Idgets are beyond salvation.

[lukequixotesanjose]

@philwebb59

Flying from Sydney to Las Vegas would be a great trip... unless it meant making a tit of yourself when you arrived the other end, and then uploaded the video for all to see.

[Rob260259]

@nwopropaganda

Merry X-mas son. Bye.

[philwebb59]

@nwopropaganda It was Aldrin's voice that Armstrong had a hard time hearing. Mechanical linkages also conduct sound. There was "air" inside the LM. Microphones intended for voice have a low frequency cut off.

[Rob260259]

@nwopropaganda

"Can you explain why snow is white"

You see? Some hours ago you started with the noise in the LM and now you're asking me to explain about frequencies and ice cubes.

Your comments are noise. And the snow? Look at my latest video of our garden.

LOL

[Rob260259]

@nwopropaganda

Why should I answer your questions? Even if I would tell you that the snow around my house is white, you would'nt believe it. Even if I would tell you that water is wet, you would doubt it.

Now go and take your silly moonhoax with you.

[Rob260259]

@nwopropaganda

Go away kid, you bother us.

[Rob260259]

@nwopropaganda

Ah. You are one of those hoaxheads assuming he's smarter than 41 years worth of science and engineering. No explaining necessary therefore.



[Rob260259]

nwopropaganda: "I do not understand it. So it must be faked."

[philwebb59]

@nwopropaganda Technical research?

[lukequixotesanjose]

You might want to chnage the links in the sidebar, I have corrected my error for denisty units and part 3 where there was a gap in the audio.

[philwebb59]

@lukequixotesanjose Done.

[lukequixotesanjose]

@philwebb59

Thanks...

[gijsshu]

I don't try to prove the force of the engine mekes a crater or not because I don't have the brains to calculate it. But at first you say in your video the dust goes directly into the direction of the forrce and falls down at the same place, and now your telling me it can't lift because of the force from above. If you didn't make the first statemant you could have proven with your second that there doesn't has to be a crater. that's what baffles me.

[gijsshu]

my point is: if you put a force at exactly 180 degrees at a flat surface, it will stay where it is, but if it is on an angle it will blow away. And indeed as in your last sentence some things may fall under the engine. I know heavy parts will not be blown away far, and the light ones will. But wat about the cohesive force in your answer? don't understand this. I know wat cohesive force is, but ( long time ago I went to school) I thought it more a thing between fluids. 12 minuten geleden

[gijsshu]

Sorry to bother you again, but did you ever play billiard? In holland we play it with 3 balls And the only way you can make a ball come back is by letting it spin around against the direction where it's going. And the ball you hit never goes towards you. And even in what we call snooker a ball never comes b ack at the player unless it first hits something with a greater resistance like the edge of the billiard.(to be continued)

[philwebb59]

@gijsshu In the states, pool is played with 16 balls, including the cue ball. There can be quite a bit of action. As for Apollo, if you're pressing straight down on a speck of dust, and there's a firm surface under it, how can it move? Think about it. If the force is pushing the spec into the ground, why does it blow out sideways? That baffles me. Does it baffle you?

[Astrobrant2]

I've seen others who make a big deal about little rocks still being visible under the LM.

Let's assume small enough rocks would have blown away under such pressure. Two points then: First, how do you know how many little rocks DID blow away? We may be seeing only a small fraction of those that were there.

Second, let's assume that a couple inches of regolith blew away. The rocks you are seeing in the picture were *under* that regolith until the last second.

Mystery solved.

[philwebb59]

@Astrobrant2 Right. The rocks exposed under the LM were probably under three inches or more of regolith. If you remove the top 15 cm (6 in), the regolith is packed so densely, you'd have to bang it pretty hard to work it apart.

[gijsshu]

It's easy to understand for me that things blown away fall down due to graity. but it is hard for me to understand that things blown away will fall down at the same place where they where originally.starting at 4.10

[philwebb59]

@gijsshu Anything that was dislodged, just as the engine shut off, may not have enough energy to overcome the cohesive force holding the regolith together and would quickly fall due to gravity. Also, like when you break the balls in billiards, some balls may shoot straight back at the shooter. So, anything caught between the nozzle and the ground, blowback, would eventually fall under the nozzle.

[lukequixotesanjose]

It seems the hoaxheads sent xismxist to debunk this series. Whoops! That was silly. A Leeroy Jenkins moment...

[occhamite]

Still batting 1000 Phil. I love jarrah's idea that the larger an object is the more easily it is moved by fluid-dynamic forces. In jw's universe, every time a breeze blows, the rocks and boulders are whisked away, while the sand and dust remain stubbornly in place.

[philwebb59]

@occhamite The sand and dust must fall through the cracks somehow.

[pjwarez]

You are all starting to chip away Jarrah's tower or nonsense. I think it will take time, but eventually I think he's going to have to scream "Uncle!"

[Rob260259]

Again Phil, clear & solid. Why are there so 'many' hoaxheads commenting on your videos..?

[philwebb59]

@Rob260259 What hoaxheads? I only see that xanadu feller who reminds me of Dr. Guillaume DOck.

[Rob260259]

Hahaha. Yep. But where are all the other 'scientists' and 'engineers', fine guys like jawa, adiohead, arcangels4myke, aurinkohirvi, awe130, claytonstarbar, cosmored, ed11561, fanbutton, foosmasoos, generalhercules, greenmagoos, gullungen84, hunchbacked, Johnsenkenn, killtheshill, mooninquirer, michaelstmark, nasafakedit, nekotech, pt1gard, secularvoice, sergemck, stalkervision, straydog02, un4g1v3nl, user17v, wengsky01 and cohorts?

[lukequixotesanjose]

I have to get an office chair today. I'll travel to the shop an average speed of 50 mph, or is that an average of 12.5 mph per tyre. The more I see his calculations and analogies, the more I realise that if WJ is the grandson of the moon hoax conspiracy, then there's no point worrying. Jarrah is the creme de la creme of the theory? The crowning glory? Wow! I mean wow! Like wow! The more I see of him, the more I think of the emperor and his new clothes. Exposed in all his fradulent glory.

[Boozyscientist]

12.5 mph per tyre? I shall look for an opportunity to use that gag!

[lukequixotesanjose]

Hmmm... yes, it will take the right audience.

[TremorHellborn]

Wait a tick...didn't AB2 say that there has never been any engine noise in the entire history of space exploration?

[philwebb59]

@TremorHellborn So, that didn't come across tongue-in-cheek? Possibly, it will rile someone.

[TremorHellborn]

Eh?

[TremorHellborn]

This was a good one! Of course, your others were terrific too, Phil.

5 stars.