Apollo Discussions > The Hoax Theory
Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast
bknight:
ok, thanks.
JayUtah:
I've looked very closely now at the YouTube version of the Apollo 17 ascent from the lunar surface, paying special attention to how Dwight has assured us the frames were combined from the field-sequential input data. There are no duplicate frames. There are only frames in which one color record is repeated (correctly) for three frames, conveying the illusion of duplication. It is an error to remove frames from this record in an attempt to "correct" the presumed time base.
bobdude11:
Just finished reading through this whole thread. I grew up watching the Apollo missions play out on TV (the level of excitement I had as a kid (7 years old) when Neil first stepped on the moon was incredible).
I have tried to dig in to the science, but found it to be a bit overwhelming. That said, thank you to Jay, et al for helping me to better understand how all of this ties together.
I continue to be a fan of this site. I learn something new each and every time I come here and thank you for not flaming me for some of my neophyte posts (most recently the hypothetical about the mass of a Star Trek starship and wouldn't it be unable to move at certain speeds due to the purported mass - I realized it was kind of silly :) )
Thanks again to all here who honor us with their time and efforts to educate those of us who want to learn more.
Obviousman:
Ditto.
onebigmonkey:
--- Quote from: Luke Pemberton on January 09, 2025, 12:34:13 AM ---
--- Quote from: JayUtah on January 08, 2025, 11:33:06 PM ---
It is incredible just how many times they take a video or still, claim this is evidence for their handwaving 'this is a feasible' argument, and ignore the 'but this is your starting point' rebuttal.
--- End quote ---
Najak, and others, have made the mistake many times of using video evidence as absolute proof of something, when what it is actually evidence of is what the recording device can achieve.
He tried to produce something on RCS thruster exhaust, using the evidence of there seemingly not being any visible (except, of course, when there is) as proof of something. The problem is that you are not analysing what actually happened, but what a device recorded as happening. In any 'scientific' study, you have to account for the capabilities of the equipment used to make your measurements.
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version