Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

SayonaraJupiter
Here is a graphic that shows all the manned space flights from 1960-2012. en.wikipedia.org...

I think this graphic speaks for itself quite eloquently. It shows that the Apollo missions are statistical outliers, they are aberrations with respect to all known human spaceflight data; the Apollo missions have never been independently confirmed nor has anyone ever attempted to duplicate them, therefore, it is suggested that the Apollo missions must have a super-extraordinary narrative to support the super-extraordinary claims.

The Apollo program does, in fact, have a super-extraordinary narrative. There are medical miracles! There are millionaires! There are military industrial connections going back to Operation Paperclip! There are Apollo films with no floating objects! There are 700+ boxes of missing Apollo telemetry tapes! We are let to believe that when NASA/ASU is erasing the cross-hairs from the Apollo images that they are doing us a great service!

We are let to believe that Keep Out Zones are un-enforceable, when in fact, the LRO and LADEE spacecrafts are equipped with highly advanced laser weapons. We all know who funded the research for lasers it was Howard Hughes in the early 1960's.

We all know who had robots/mobots in the late 1950's it was Howard Hughes, again. And it was Hughes who screwed the government for $365 Millions for the 7 Surveyor spacecraft, but he probably had opportunities to build at least 10.

We all know who hated Communists more than anybody it was Howard Hughes and again Richard Nixon, both of them at the height of their political/economic power during Nixon's presidency.

We all know and agree on who killed the Apollo program it was Richard Nixon who made that decision and he made that decision less than 4 years after James Webb quit NASA.

Nixon allegedly based that decision on economics but only a few months down the road he was spending $4 Billion to bomb North Vietnam back to the stone age during the Christmas bombings of Linebacker II.

Money is nothing. Political will is everything. And there has been no political will (from any leader or any nation) to return a man to the moon since Nixon. That's why Nixon belongs in this thread.

Really explain how a graphic showing the dates has anything to do with statistics. See once again you make wild claims trying to deceive people you already admitted you have no proof only questions. Well do us a favor try to ask relevant questions other than Nixon. Your infatuation with him is well kind of scarry do you have posters on your wall just curious.

Oh and please give us some facts on those laser weapons you claim we have on the moon because i hate to tell you but your starting to look crazy.With your really strange beliefs i expect next youll be telling us about the space armada we have in orbit. I do hope in your imagination you at least made them look cool and dont forget needs warp drive to battle all those pesky aliens in interstellar combat.

Ps im starting to have doubts you ever leave the house,But incase you actually manage to find a boy or girl depending on your preference. well i find the perfect thing for you to dress up here you go maybe this will help.

www.zazzle.com...

onebigmonkey


Yes there is, and not just in that one tiny clip that you're pinning your hopes on. That clip is part of a long sequence from an EVA, all of which shows astronaut movement and lunar material behaving just as it should in a low gravity environment. The lunar material behaves just as it should in a zero atmosphere environment.

We also have lunar experiments from Apollo 16 planted on the surface that sent information back to Earth, we have images of Earth taken on film and on TV broadcasts that exactly match what should be there, we have lunar surface features that they could only know about by actually being there, and so on and so on. Taking one tiny fragment and failing to understand what it shows ignores all of the other evidence that supports it.

It's another nail in Apollo's coffin.

Young's jump is (supposedly) impossible to replicate on Earth. Only one jump was needed to show it was very much possible. A 0.3 second difference, only found in super-duper slo-mo, as the only jump done, never meant to replicate Young's jump whatsoever.

You tried all the excuses for it.

'The jump by Young is 0.3 seconds slower than the jump by a Mythbusters guy'. Therefore, the jump by Young cannot have been done on Earth.'

It was so goofy. To suggest that ANY two jumps, done by two different people, will be an exact match!!


You've just switched it to a dust/dirt claim.

onebigmonkey

Oh, and 'arguments from authority' is not necessarily wrong. Sometimes authorities on a subject, like geologists, engineers, physicists, selenologists and many other disciplines are actually correct and it is an idea to at least listen to them before you automatically dismiss them in favour of subjective and prejudiced opinion and lack of authority.

No. The reality is that most people are automatically accepting them!

That's exactly what you've done.

It's a type of 'group-think'. The authorities that know all truths, about all things - and nobody else is qualified to make any claims.


Apollo is assumed to be genuine by all the scientists. It's deemed to be all true, all factual - let's all move along, now!

Think for yourself, but don't you ever make any waves!

Apollo is a massive sacred cow, never to doubt or to question.


But I question it, as many others do.

turbonium1
It's another nail in Apollo's coffin.

The nails are all bent and never went anywhere near the lid.

Young's jump is (supposedly) impossible to replicate on Earth. Only one jump was needed to show it was very much possible. A 0.3 second difference, only found in super-duper slo-mo, as the only jump done, never meant to replicate Young's jump whatsoever.

Possible? With a team of people pulling a hoist attached by a harness. Where is the hoist in Young's jump video? Where are the harnesses? Where are the other teams of people trying to avoid Young and Duke not snagging each other as they swap places, all in a live TV broadcast. Oh, and it clearly is meant to replicate Young's jump. Watch the programme.

You tried all the excuses for it.

Not excuses. Facts. Care to supply any of yours?

'The jump by Young is 0.3 seconds slower than the jump by a Mythbusters guy'. Therefore, the jump by Young cannot have been done on Earth.'

It was so goofy. To suggest that ANY two jumps, done by two different people, will be an exact match!!

Wait - so what are you arguing? The two jumps are the same or the two jumps are different? Which is it? I haven't actually argued that it couldn't be replicated on Earth, nor have I have split hairs about the times. What I am pointing out to you, again, is that 'possible' is not the same as 'this is what was done'. I am also pointing out to you, again, that it was not slow motion photography. What i am pointing out to you, again, is that in order to replicate Young's lunar jump they required a team of people with harnesses and pulleys, and that they would have needed two sets of this and that somehow they managed to hide it all on a live TV broadcast.

You've just switched it to a dust/dirt claim.

No, not switching, just pointing out to you, again, that you are missing the bigger picture. Explain the dust and dirt's behaviour. It is not slow motion. It is consistent with low gravity and zero atmosphere. You can't just hand wave away evidence you don't like.

No. The reality is that most people are automatically accepting them!

You don't understand how science works do you?

That's exactly what you've done.

Again, read my website - I've looked at Apollo form angles no-one else has. Prove it wrong.

It's a type of 'group-think'. The authorities that know all truths, about all things - and nobody else is qualified to make any claims.

Important point: no-one else is qualified. All the qualified people, you know, the people who have studied for years to gain expertise in a subject and could actually be in a position to disprove Apollo actually don't, and are happy to that Apollo happened as historically documented. Your failure to understand the science and engineering does not invalidate it.

Apollo is assumed to be genuine by all the scientists. It's deemed to be all true, all factual - let's all move along, now!

Think for yourself, but don't you ever make any waves!

Apollo is a massive sacred cow, never to doubt or to question.


But I question it, as many others do.

How about you question the arguments you believe in - that;s how progress is made an what you insist we do. Look at your own arguments and ask how you would disprove them.

The act of questioning something does not automatically prove it wrong, so you have nothing to be afraid of right?

e2a: Here, have half an hour or so of continuous footage from the LRV TV camera showing the photography session to put it in proper context.

onebigmonkey

The only reason Nixon belongs in this thread is to give you something to talk about.

Maybe you are right OBM. I might be the only person on ATS who gives a goddam about Richard Nixon's political roles he played in the mid - 20th century of American history. He played so many roles.... from Quaker lawyer... to US Navy poker player... he played the lead in a stage production of 'Black Tower' where he met his wife Pat... Nixon played the role of a whipping boy for Ike when Ike sent him on those dangerous trips to foreign lands.... Nixon played a role with Operation Paperclip helping Nazi industrialists to retain power and wealth in southern California banking schemes .... Nixon is a player in the Operation 40 and the Bay of Pigs... he played the role of up and comming Republican in the 1950's, in the magazine covers of the day he was the Republican version of John F. Kennedy. Nixon & JFK both were on magazine covers during the 1950's-1960 many, many times. It is clear how 1950's propaganda was working through the news magazines of the era.

Nixon also played the role of the loser in the 1960's, after he lost to JFK and lost again another race for Governor of California in 1962 en.wikipedia.org... for which Nixon was awarded the role of the recluse and the role of "Comeback Kid" in 1968 which was a not an spontaneous event... it was highly orchestrated... well planned and well funded by Howard Hughes and the military industrial complex...

...to coincide with the hottest year, in terms of bloodshed, 1968, which was so violent in Viet Nam and when that violence turned into domestic upheaval, well, after RFK took the bullets from the security guard in a California Hotel ... Nixon entered the White House, on time, on schedule, for the Apollo TV propaganda extravaganza, assisted by CIA Nazis and the Hughes organization, Frank Shakespeare and Thomas O. Paine... because as you know... James Webb quit NASA before any of those moon missions were launched.

Let's skip up to 1972 where Nixon played the role of Conqueror of the Moon when he visited China and Russia but only two years later he was playing the role of loser.... again. During the summer of 1973 and all of 1974 he was a marked man, a recluse, not unlike Neil Armstrong was a recluse.

The successes of the Apollo moon landing program coincided exactly and historically with the successes of the Nixon presidency and there is no disputing about that. There is not just a correlation of facts or a coincidence of narratives... there is a clear conspiracy, a hoax perpetrated and a scientific theory that 12 men, the "Dirty Dozen", walked on the "moon". Since there has been no independent verification of human spaceflight outside of low earth orbit I can safely assume that Richard Nixon produced the Apollo TV shows with the help of certain insiders who were well paid-off to go along with the plan... Like Walter Crokite and Arthur C. Clarke. Like Alan Shepard the millionaire who peed his pants to achieve 15 minutes of Mercury glory and who later played golf on the "moon".



Richard Nixon single handedly, at his own whim and caprice, stabbed the Apollo program in the back, stabbed Wernher von Braun in the back, and stabbed every Apollo astronaut in the back by cancelling Apollo moon missions and re-allocating that money to low earth orbit shuttle schemes?

Was it just a coincidence that Howard Hughes was under extreme media scrutiny in early 1972 due to the Clifford Irving affair and the Watergate break-in takes place in June of 1972? None of that mattered because Nixon won the landslide in November 1972, followed by the last Apollo 17 in December and followed by the carpet bombing of North Vietnam on the Christmas.

So the Apollo 8 bible reading didn't mean much politically it was done for pure propaganda.

choos


you are not understanding.. it is the original and has been scrutinised over for over 40+ years.. the new claim is that the dust falls faster than the astronaut..

different resolutions will lead to different pixel counts.. just use the one from NASA and stick to the one resolution when you are trying to confirm.. if you dont want to count pixels overlay a grid..

and yes it is all about the physics.. what matters is the distance travelled over the time taken.. the PLSS is a fixed object with a known size and can be used as a reference..

You made the first claim about dust/dirt falling at the same speed as Young falls. You brought it up on this thread.

And you still have not supported your claim.

You say the new claim is that the dust falls faster. So what the f&^$ is your point here??

Anyone can say 'He claimed ___ first, back in 2005!' Sheesh.


Show your claim holds up, if you can..

turbonium1
You made the first claim about dust/dirt falling at the same speed as Young falls. You brought it up on this thread.

And you still have not supported your claim.

You say the new claim is that the dust falls faster. So what the f&^$ is your point here??

Anyone can say 'He claimed ___ first, back in 2005!' Sheesh.

no i did not make that claim.. that is a fact as presented by NASA..

the new claim is by you, saying that the dust/dirt falls faster than the astronaut..

you chose not to believe it, you chose to claim that the dust falls faster since the astronaut is being suspended by wires.. it is your claim that the dust falls faster, i showed you proof it didnt and you claimed again that the dust falls faster.. with no proof of your claim again..

you have had two weeks to get your proof but obviously you were too lazy for it..

it took me no more than 1hr to download a free basic video editing software and the original jumping salute and verify that the dust does NOT fall too fast as your have claimed..

i cant post the video as i dont want to, just do it yourself if you dont believe me..

this is everything i used:
videodub - free video editing software that allows you to watch the jumping salute frame by frame
www.virtualdub.org...
john youngs jump from NASA website
www.hq.nasa.gov...
and MSpaint or photoshop or any photo editing software..

first up.. the first part of the jump was too difficult for me to see where the dirt lands it lands somewhere far away and dissipated and was too hard for me to see follow the dust/dirt frame by frame the dust/dirt lands somewhere here as shown in the circle in my opinion:


so i didnt bother with the first jump..

the second jump however has some dust/dirt right below john youngs left foot and can be clearly seen and followed so i used that:


i took a screenshot of the dust at its peak and overlayed a grid so i can use some measurements the dust reaches its peak/apex at about frame 336 or 11.211 seconds into the clip..

notice in the picture the PLSS takes up a bit more than 7 squares in my opinion about 7.1 squares or so.. the PLSS has known dimensions which for our case is 66cm high as noted from here:
en.wikipedia.org...

so that equates to 9.29cm per square.. i dont need to worry about the width as i am only calculating the height of the dust/dirt.

in the pic above the dust/dirt rises about 1.25 squares and since each square represents about 9.29cm.. the dust/sirt reaches a height of about 11.61cm..

this image shows the dust/dirt back on the ground:


this occurs in frame 347 or 11.578seconds into the clip..

so it took the dust/dirt about 11 frames or 0.367 seconds to fall 11.61cm..

now we have everything to work out the acceleration due to gravity which is:

0.1161=0.5*a*(0.367)^2
a=1.72m/s^2

thats pretty close obviously its not going to be exact as the grid im using is very coarse and a finer grid would be more accurate and i have rounding errors..

now the dust/dirt you say should be falling at close to 9.81m/s^2 when sped up 1.5x.. which means in the clip the dust/dirt should have dropped from 11.61cm not in 0.367seconds but in 0.245 seconds or in about 7.33 frames..

so if the dust/dirt falls 11.61cm in 0.245seconds that means this clip was filmed at an acceleration due to gravity of:
0.1161=0.5*a*(0.245)^2
a=3.87m/s^2

your 1.5x (66.66%) slow down theory is trying to prove that earths gravity is now about 3.9m/s^2 a far cry from 9.81m/s^2

it would have taken you less than one hour to try to prove your claim.. but i guess you were too lazy for that..

Show your claim holds up, if you can..

just did unlike you, it took me less than one hour to do this.. and two weeks and counting for your "evidence" that the dust/dirt falls faster than the astronaut..

so either show your evidence with the calculations that the dust/dirt falls at earths gravity when sped up 1.5x (66.66%) or go back under your bridge with your troll physics..

onebigmonkey

How about you question the arguments you believe in - that;s how progress is made an what you insist we do. Look at your own arguments and ask how you would disprove them.

The act of questioning something does not automatically prove it wrong, so you have nothing to be afraid of right?

e2a: Here, have half an hour or so of continuous footage from the LRV TV camera showing the photography session to put it in proper context.

A great example, indeed..

How would hours of continuous footage be done, if it was a hoax?

So I wanted more info about the issue...

I found there was a film by Warhol, all shown in slow-motion. Hours of continuous footage in slo-mo. The film was made before any Apollo 'lunar' footage. to boot.

Do you know what else I found out?

The Warhol film was the exact same speed - as Apollo's footage was!

It was at 66.66% speed.

A film shot at 24 fps, shown at 16 fps, which makes it 66.66% speed.

That's why it was possible to have hours of continuous footage in slo
-mo in Warhol's movie, and in the Apollo 'movies'!

It's certainly not peculiar to find that Young's jump matches up so well to the Mythbusters jump at the exact same 66.66% speed, right?

Nothing odd to find every Apollo moonwalk is at that speed, except for Apollo 11.

Apollo 11 was at 50% speed. It didn't have hours of continuous footage, right? Hmm..

reply to post by turbonium1


you can now leave with your troll physics and return to your bridge..

you have been proven wrong.. the dust/dirt falls at 1.92m/s^2..

and if sped up 1.5x or 66.66% its still only 4m/s^2 no where near 9.81m/s^2..

take your troll physics with you as well.

turbonium1

onebigmonkey

How about you question the arguments you believe in - that;s how progress is made an what you insist we do. Look at your own arguments and ask how you would disprove them.

The act of questioning something does not automatically prove it wrong, so you have nothing to be afraid of right?

e2a: Here, have half an hour or so of continuous footage from the LRV TV camera showing the photography session to put it in proper context.

A great example, indeed..

How would hours of continuous footage be done, if it was a hoax?

So I wanted more info about the issue...

I found there was a film by Warhol, all shown in slow-motion. Hours of continuous footage in slo-mo. The film was made before any Apollo 'lunar' footage. to boot.

Do you know what else I found out?

The Warhol film was the exact same speed - as Apollo's footage was!

It was at 66.66% speed.

A film shot at 24 fps, shown at 16 fps, which makes it 66.66% speed.

That's why it was possible to have hours of continuous footage in slo
-mo in Warhol's movie, and in the Apollo 'movies'!

It's certainly not peculiar to find that Young's jump matches up so well to the Mythbusters jump at the exact same 66.66% speed, right?

Nothing odd to find every Apollo moonwalk is at that speed, except for Apollo 11.

Apollo 11 was at 50% speed. It didn't have hours of continuous footage, right? Hmm..

Well that should be incredibly easy to prove speed up the frame rate post the video and we will all have a look at it. Or you can simply go online to the others that have already done this and shown how silly it looks either way. But its your evidence so show us by the way you can look on ATS as well there was several of these threads i recall and each time someone proved that whole slowed viseo theory wrong.Theres something else you dont know about film s well you can tell what frame rate it was recorded at people dont realize this know that we use digital.

reply to post by turbonium1


You're really having trouble with this aren't you.

The video I linked to of the jump salute was a live TV broadcast. Not video. Not film. Live TV.

Half an hour of just one part of that broadcast to Earth showing astronauts who you seem to thank are all harnessed up with no evidence of those harnesses at all, and with dust, flags and the astronauts behaving just as they would in a zero atmosphere low gravity environment.

As for your Warhol nonsense, again you spectacularly miss the point. No-one disputes variable frame rates are possible. You hae proved nothing there. I have pointed out to you before that the DAC cameras used variable frame rates.

The youtube footage you keep referring to, however, are TV, not film. The TV broadcasts were not recorded in advance, as proven by every picture of Earth they show.

Stop trying to prove what could have been done and prove to us it was done.

choos

first up.. the first part of the jump was too difficult for me to see where the dirt lands it lands somewhere far away and dissipated and was too hard for me to see follow the dust/dirt frame by frame the dust/dirt lands somewhere here as shown in the circle in my opinion:

so i didnt bother with the first jump..

All this time, you've been claiming how the dust/dirt falls at the same rate as Young falls. You posted a video which supposedly measured dust and Young fallling an identical 37 pixels over 12 frames.

In the FIRST jump.

Now, you're telling me that you cannot accurately measure the dust/dirt falling in the first jump!!?!!

How do you expect to be taken seriously? You make a claim, never support it, yet unwittingly crap all over it with another claim?

It's both sad and funny.

turbonium1

All this time, you've been claiming how the dust/dirt falls at the same rate as Young falls. You posted a video which supposedly measured dust and Young fallling an identical 37 pixels over 12 frames.

In the FIRST jump.

Now, you're telling me that you cannot accurately measure the dust/dirt falling in the first jump!!?!!

How do you expect to be taken seriously? You make a claim, never support it, yet unwittingly crap all over it with another claim?

It's both sad and funny.

you are going off on a tangent.. the second jump makes things more clear.. you can clearly see the dust fall at the proper rate which conclusively proves your 1.5x or 66.66% slowdown theory wrong..

if i look at it frame by frame it is very difficult for me to see the dust/dirt hit the ground in the first jump.. and you will complain oh i cant see anything it proves nothing.. thus i used the second jump which has dust/dirt much more clearly visible..

and not to mention it falls close to 1.92m/s^2.. but instead of realising how wrong you are you have ignored it yet again and gone off on a tangent..

prove to everyone that the dust falls faster, if you cannot then you can take your trolling elsewhere..

i have given you both the video editing software and the video clip..

prove your claim or go back to your bridge, troll.

p.s. how is this another claim?? i am showing you that the dust/dirt falls at lunar gravity.. your claim is that it falls faster.. i have shown evidence that the dust falls according to lunar gravity..

what have you shown?? nothing but ignorance..

choos

you can now leave with your troll physics and return to your bridge..

you have been proven wrong.. the dust/dirt falls at 1.92m/s^2..

and if sped up 1.5x or 66.66% its still only 4m/s^2 no where near 9.81m/s^2..

take your troll physics with you as well.

Now, now..hurling insults won't make the painful truth go away.

Btw, thanks for the link to virtualdub.

You claim "the dust/dirt falls at 1.92m/s^2.. and if sped up 1.5x or 66.66% its still only 4m/s^2 no where near 9.81m/s^2.."




You claim 1.5x speed makes the dust fall at 4m/s^2 speed, right?

So I used virtualdub to get 1.5x speed, and it looks exactly the same speed as dust falling on Earth - 9.81m/s^2

See for yourself.

However, you may still believe the dust is falling at 4m/s^2, or need more evidence on it.

Put the 1.5x sped up footage, which you say is at 4m/s^2 speed, to 2x speed. That is close enough to Earth's gravity, right?

You will not see dust falling near Earth's speed.

Ignore the astronaut, if you want. The dust is falling much, much faster than it does on Earth.

Obviously, your calculations fail to hold after testing them with the clip.

Back to the old drawing board...

turbonium1

Now, now..hurling insults won't make the painful truth go away.

Btw, thanks for the link to virtualdub.

You claim "the dust/dirt falls at 1.92m/s^2.. and if sped up 1.5x or 66.66% its still only 4m/s^2 no where near 9.81m/s^2.."

You claim 1.5x speed makes the dust fall at 4m/s^2 speed, right?

So I used virtualdub to get 1.5x speed, and it looks exactly the same speed as dust falling on Earth - 9.81m/s^2

See for yourself.

you know what you just said??

if you speed up the john young clip by 1.5x or 66.66% it will look just like on earth..

i just showed you the math from the above post.. if you speed up john youngs jump 1.5x or 66.66% the acceleration due to gravity is about 4m/s^2.. i am not using my opinion, i am using maths and physics..

is the gravity on earth 4m/s^2 or not?

However, you may still believe the dust is falling at 4m/s^2, or need more evidence on it.

Put the 1.5x sped up footage, which you say is at 4m/s^2 speed, to 2x speed. That is close enough to Earth's gravity, right?

You will not see dust falling near Earth's speed.

use maths..

maths doesnt lie

no it is not close to earths gravity.. to replicate earths gravity you need to speed it up about 2.45x i believe, i dont know where you got the speed it up 1.5x and then speed it up 2x again.. thats ridiculous..

we are not doing this by "oh it looks about right" i am using maths and physics to prove it.. as above i have already calculated what would happen if you sped up the clip 1.5x.. the dust/dirt will fall 11.61cm in 0.245seconds (if the clip was sped up 1.5x)

this would indicate an acceleration due to gravity of about 4m/s^2 with errors.. it is no where near 9.81m/s^2..

for dust/dirt to fall 11.61cm on earth it will take about 0.154 seconds.. i am not making this up.. this is fundamental maths and physics something you do not have..

your "oh it looks about right" "physics" does not cut it.

Ignore the astronaut, if you want. The dust is falling much, much faster than it does on Earth.

Obviously, your calculations fail to hold after testing them with the clip.

Back to the old drawing board...

on earth dust/dirt falls at 9.81m/s^2 using maths and physics.. this you cannot deny..

in the john young clip i have shown that the dust/dirt falls close to 1.92m/s^2 due to rounding errors. with maths.. the maths the physics they dont lie..

what have you shown?? your opinion.. oh it looks about right..

speeding up the clip 1.5x will make the dust fall at around 4m/s^2 ..

ask yourself.. will dust fall at 4m/s^2 or will dust fall at 9.81m/s^2 on earth???

show us your calculations.. that speeding up john youngs jump 1.5x will represent earths gravitation acceleration of 9.81m/s^2

using evidence of "it looks about right" will get you no where apart from laughs..

stop with your blatant ignorance and troll physics and prove your claim.

turbonium1

choos

you can now leave with your troll physics and return to your bridge..

you have been proven wrong.. the dust/dirt falls at 1.92m/s^2..

and if sped up 1.5x or 66.66% its still only 4m/s^2 no where near 9.81m/s^2..

take your troll physics with you as well.

Now, now..hurling insults won't make the painful truth go away.

Btw, thanks for the link to virtualdub.

You claim "the dust/dirt falls at 1.92m/s^2.. and if sped up 1.5x or 66.66% its still only 4m/s^2 no where near 9.81m/s^2.."




You claim 1.5x speed makes the dust fall at 4m/s^2 speed, right?

So I used virtualdub to get 1.5x speed, and it looks exactly the same speed as dust falling on Earth - 9.81m/s^2

See for yourself.

However, you may still believe the dust is falling at 4m/s^2, or need more evidence on it.

Put the 1.5x sped up footage, which you say is at 4m/s^2 speed, to 2x speed. That is close enough to Earth's gravity, right?

You will not see dust falling near Earth's speed.

Ignore the astronaut, if you want. The dust is falling much, much faster than it does on Earth.

Obviously, your calculations fail to hold after testing them with the clip.

Back to the old drawing board...

Real scientific there looks like huh? Well i checked his math.See you cant call him wrong and be lazy about it You have to show his grid squares are actually the wrong measurement. Oh and i had no doubt you would think it looks the same i take it math is not your strong suit is it? See in order to tell how much gravity you have you have to know the speed iit falls. You cant say it looks like because quite frankly the human eye doesnt see that much of a difference thats why we have to look at the distance traveled.

onebigmonkey

The video I linked to of the jump salute was a live TV broadcast. Not video. Not film. Live TV.

Half an hour of just one part of that broadcast to Earth showing astronauts who you seem to thank are all harnessed up with no evidence of those harnesses at all, and with dust, flags and the astronauts behaving just as they would in a zero atmosphere low gravity environment.

It was not live. Harnesses were simply edited out, it was not really hard to 'remove the evidence' of them. I've shown you a few movies, which edited out harnesses - well before Apollo.

The astronauts don't behave at all like they would in a true 1/6 lunar gravity. You assume they do because they are your reference for 'genuine' 1/6 g behavior, in the first place! It's circular reasoning.


They move at the same speed throughout the footage, which is a few hours total. It is impossible for all the astronauts to move deliberately, and consistently, at the same slow speed. Only slowing down movements done on Earth to 66.66% (or 50%) can explain this.

Now, there are TWO different speeds the astronauts move at, during the Apollo missions. Apollo 11 astronauts all move at 50% speed. At 2x speed they become normal Earth speed in all their movements. The other missions are all at 66.66% speed. At 1.5x speed, all their movements become normal Earth speed. Hours of continuous footage is possible at 66.66% speed, as we know.

Here's the kicker - Apollo 11 only looks normal at 2x speed - the astronauts move TOO SLOW at 1.5x speed compared to movements on Earth.

And - all the other missions only look normal at 1.5x speed - the astronauts move TOO FAST at 2x speed.

Any movements will be consistent, within the same environment. In 0g, or 1/6 g, or 1g.
They can be sped up 2x, or 1.5x, or slowed to 50%, or 66.66%, and the movements will all be at the same speed!

Who hasn't seen what people on Earth look like moving around at 2x speed, or slowed to 1/2 speed? Their movements are consistent with ANY speed. All move equally as fast, or as slow.

But the Apollo 11 astronauts do not match with the other astronauts. Which means they are not on the moon.

onebigmonkey

As for your Warhol nonsense, again you spectacularly miss the point. No-one disputes variable frame rates are possible. You hae proved nothing there. I have pointed out to you before that the DAC cameras used variable frame rates.

I've proven hours of continuous slow-motion footage was done before Apollo, which your side claimed could not be done. And I've shown it's the exact same speed - 66.66% - as Apollo's footage. I suppose this proves nothing to you Apollo-ites, right?

onebigmonkey

The youtube footage you keep referring to, however, are TV, not film. The TV broadcasts were not recorded in advance, as proven by every picture of Earth they show.

We had unmanned probes, back then. But you go ahead believing it was done by Apollo as they flew to the moon.

reply to post by turbonium1


since you dont believe me ill bump the video up to 44.96fps up from the original 29.97fps which is 1.5x or 66.66% faster ill use the same frames as the first calculations frames 336 and frames 347..


frame 336 @44.96fps correlates to a time of 7.473 seconds


frame 347 @44.96fps correlates to a time of 7.718 seconds

the difference is 7.718-7.473= 0.245 seconds to drop the same 11.61cm..

which correlates to an acceleration due to gravity of 0.1161=0.5*a*0.245^2
a=3.87m/s^2

ask yourself this, is earths gravity around 4m/s^2??????

for reference:
frame 336 @29.97fps correlates to a time of 11.211 seconds
frame 347 @ 29.97fps correlates to a time of 11.578 seconds..

time difference 11.578-11.211=0.367
which correlates to an acceleration due to gravity of 0.1161=0.5*a*0.367^2
a=1.72m/s^2

turbonium1

onebigmonkey

The video I linked to of the jump salute was a live TV broadcast. Not video. Not film. Live TV.

Half an hour of just one part of that broadcast to Earth showing astronauts who you seem to thank are all harnessed up with no evidence of those harnesses at all, and with dust, flags and the astronauts behaving just as they would in a zero atmosphere low gravity environment.

It was not live. Harnesses were simply edited out, it was not really hard to 'remove the evidence' of them. I've shown you a few movies, which edited out harnesses - well before Apollo.

Sorry that technology didnt exist yet. Youve seen to many blue screens in movies and think thats always the way it was done. They woulf have had to hide it by blocking your view plenty of examples in movies of the 60s.

The astronauts don't behave at all like they would in a true 1/6 lunar gravity. You assume they do because they are your reference for 'genuine' 1/6 g behavior, in the first place! It's circular reasoning.

Just how are they supposed to act?

They move at the same speed throughout the footage, which is a few hours total. It is impossible for all the astronauts to move deliberately, and consistently, at the same slow speed. Only slowing down movements done on Earth to 66.66% (or 50%) can explain this.

What slow speed ive watched hours of viseo from apollo and i never seen it care to explain what video there moving slow in we can check it out. Sounds to me you just convinced yourself of this facts be damned.

Now, there are TWO different speeds the astronauts move at, during the Apollo missions. Apollo 11 astronauts all move at 50% speed. At 2x speed they become normal Earth speed in all their movements. The other missions are all at 66.66% speed. At 1.5x speed, all their movements become normal Earth speed. Hours of continuous footage is possible at 66.66% speed, as we know.

Here's the kicker - Apollo 11 only looks normal at 2x speed - the astronauts move TOO SLOW at 1.5x speed compared to movements on Earth.

This is your claim but apparently you have no evidence. Also one more time we can tell what from rate a video was recorded in when it is on film.They didnt have digital so i guess you are claiming the astronauts purposefully moved slow like sone bad sci fi movies ive seen?

And - all the other missions only look normal at 1.5x speed - the astronauts move TOO FAST at 2x speed.

Any movements will be consistent, within the same environment. In 0g, or 1/6 g, or 1g.
They can be sped up 2x, or 1.5x, or slowed to 50%, or 66.66%, and the movements will all be at the same speed!

Who hasn't seen what people on Earth look like moving around at 2x speed, or slowed to 1/2 speed? Their movements are consistent with ANY speed. All move equally as fast, or as slow.

Really thats amazing since the beginning of film they played with the speed to slow it down or speed it up because it doesnt look the same. In a movie they can speed it up for humor like chaplin did or slow it down for dramatic effect.But obviously everyone sees a difference or they wouldn't do it that makes no sense.
[Quote]
But the Apollo 11 astronauts do not match with the other astronauts. Which means they are not on the moon.[/Quote]

So now there other astronauts are real and apollo 11 is faked?

[Quote]
As for your Warhol nonsense, again you spectacularly miss the point. No-one disputes variable frame rates are possible. You hae proved nothing there. I have pointed out to you before that the DAC cameras used variable frame rates.

I've proven hours of continuous slow-motion footage was done before Apollo, which your side claimed could not be done. And I've shown it's the exact same speed - 66.66% - as Apollo's footage. I suppose this proves nothing to you Apollo-ites, right?[/Quote]

No we said live footage not pre recorded film again your not paying attention.
[Quote]
We had unmanned probes, back then. But you go ahead believing it was done by Apollo as they flew to the moon.

Your way overestimating the technology they had in robotics same mistake another person in this thread made and was shown they didnt know what they were talking about.

choos
reply to post by turbonium1

 

since you dont believe me ill bump the video up to 44.96fps up from the original 29.97fps which is 1.5x or 66.66% faster ill use the same frames as the first calculations frames 336 and frames 347..

frame 336 @44.96fps correlates to a time of 7.473 seconds

frame 347 @44.96fps correlates to a time of 7.718 seconds

the difference is 7.718-7.473= 0.245 seconds to drop the same 11.61cm..

which correlates to an acceleration due to gravity of 0.1161=0.5*a*0.245^2
a=3.87m/s^2

ask yourself this, is earths gravity around 4m/s^2??????

for reference:
frame 336 @29.97fps correlates to a time of 11.211 seconds
frame 347 @ 29.97fps correlates to a time of 11.578 seconds..

time difference 11.578-11.211=0.367
which correlates to an acceleration due to gravity of 0.1161=0.5*a*0.367^2
a=1.72m/s^2

edit on 2-2-2014 by choos because: (no reason given)

I'm going to post the clip at 1.5x speed, and the 1.5x clip at 2x speed. You can do the same, if you'd like.

turbonium1

I'm going to post the clip at 1.5x speed, and the 1.5x clip at 2x speed. You can do the same, if you'd like.

ok.. but why would it matter??

im not worried about what looks right and what doesnt look right..

its the physics that matters..

are you seriously trying to deny real world physics??

im not making up the equations these equations have been around for centuries..

i sped up the clip 1.5x because that is your claim that should represent earths gravity..

speeding up the clip 1.5x will show that the gravity is acting around 4m/s^2 not the 9.81m/s^2 that everybody knows..

so once again is earths gravity at 9.81m/s^2 or around 4m/s^s?????