ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: najak on November 22, 2024, 07:10:27 AM
-
Here are a few links that cover the topic if "Sand falling too fast" when the astronauts jump or walk. The behavior of the sand seems to indicate that the astronaut is being hoisted by a cable to slow his descent, while the sand falls at natural earth gravity.
Footage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59stz-Qe7Lw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59stz-Qe7Lw)
Volley ball comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLjPKjppy_0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLjPKjppy_0)
FRAME ANALYSIS - PROOF. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgd6fxuEDl0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgd6fxuEDl0)
I am unaware of how PNA's explain this behavior. I checked my main "Debunking" source and searched for "Sand" and "Gravity", but neither topic was mentioned in the TOC.
Please enlighten me.
-
Please enlighten me.
The dust didn't get as high off the ground as the astronaut?
-
@BertieSlack, wrote:
"The dust didn't get as high off the ground as the astronaut?"
I appreciate your kind answer, but I'd like to keep this thread from meandering. Serious answers only. If you watch the 3rd link, it does a great job of frame capture to show that the sand rises right along with the bottom of his foot, or is kicked upwards from the tops of his feet. Yet it's falls more than double the speed of the astronauts, indicating the truth of MLH -- these astronauts are being hoisted by a thin cable to help simulate lunar gravity, while the sand is only influenced by the earth's gravity.
Here's the 3rd link again: https://youtu.be/cgd6fxuEDl0?t=40 (https://youtu.be/cgd6fxuEDl0?t=40)
-
I don't respond to clickbait. YOU are making the extraordinary claim; YOU prove that the motion is incorrect. Explain what is happening, why it must be wrong, and how the only alternative must be wires.
All you have done is basically say: it's wrong with no supporting evidence.
This isn't our first rodeo, sunshine.
-
I don't respond to clickbait. YOU are making the extraordinary claim; YOU prove that the motion is incorrect. Explain what is happening, why it must be wrong, and how the only alternative must be wires. All you have done is basically say: it's wrong with no supporting evidence.
The supporting evidence is shown best in the 3rd link. Stop frames show the sand initially rising the same speed as the foot (some cases, the sand is on TOP of the foot, so has to rise with the foot, while other sand is tightly below the foot, so nearly the same speed as the foot).
Yet the sand falls more than 2X as fast. The video shows the evidence. How do you explain this sand falling so quickly, while the astronaut does not?
The 3rd link mostly stands alone:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgd6fxuEDl0&t=40s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgd6fxuEDl0&t=40s)
-
How do you explain this sand falling so quickly
Are you a flat earther? Flerfers can't think in three dimensions either.
BTW - if the astronaut was on a wire, how come he take exactly the same time to go up as he does to come down?
-
I knew these would come in handy. Here is an animated gif of the famous jump salute.
(https://i.ibb.co/qrjRGpk/Jump.gif)
Obviously there is a nice little parabolic arc of dust between John Young's boots. He goes up and so does the parabolic arc. Same time, same height. If he's on wires, so is the dust.
This one is a brilliant debunk of this dopey claim. The footage where Gene Cernan does his hippity-hoppity routine closes this case in one tiny segment.
-
If the astronaut was on a wire, how come he take exactly the same time to go up as he does to come down?
Again, it seems I'm dealing with people here who do not understand basic simple high school physics.
If the astronaut and fake-suit weigh 200 lbs combined, and the wire is applying a constant 100 lbs upward force... then his jump trajectory will still follow a near-perfect parabola, with the launch speed being the same as the landing speed. Do I really need to make a physics-proof for you, for you to understand this? This is basic high school physics concept. Please learn this math/physics, before commenting on physics topics.
@Allen F - you promised me "smart scientific minds" here. Please summon them, ASAP.
I suspect the smartest minds are staying out of this, because it's a losing battle for them. Apollo is "breaking physics" here, which is impossible.
-
If the astronaut and fake-suit weigh 200 lbs combined, and the wire is applying a constant 100 lbs upward force...
Think about what you just wrote, and then deal with what Mag40 just showed you.
-
This one is a brilliant debunk of this dopey claim. The footage where Gene Cernan does his hippity-hoppity routine closes this case in one tiny segment....
Thanks for the attempt at debunking. This gave me some homework to do. I consider your "hippity hoppity" rebuttal as a failure.
Today I obtained the NASA source video for this clip, as well as the Navy salute, and captured all frames at native resolution, without modification.
1. Navy Salute - appears to be damning for the PNA's.
2. The Hippity Hoppity attempted rebuttal has a major flaw.
I have placed all of my work on OneDrive, summarized in a google doc, with links to folders of the frame captures, as well as a KRITA project that overlays all frames as layers, and an MP4 for each that shows the sequence. I used VLC to export NASA's mpg frames to images.
Check it out and let me know what you think:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aos6_EqxlNfpLUGoSSemppmw_lUjl0hiby99szCKYi4/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aos6_EqxlNfpLUGoSSemppmw_lUjl0hiby99szCKYi4/edit?usp=sharing)
Spoiler - for the Hippity Hoppity attempted rebuttal, I pasted my conclusions here for your convenience:
#1 - This dot stays nearly stationary and the same size for 10 frames! (1/3rd second)
If it was incoming sand, it would be moving along the ground.
#2 - There is no sign of any dust coming in from above. It’s fully invisible, then this dot just magically appears, and stays nearly stationary for 10 frames, and PNA’s call it dust.
#3 - Let’s imagine that this is dust (magical). As he’s hopping along, each time he has to kick his feet forward as part of the hopping motion. This kicking motion would cause some dust to have an added upward boost. But since this dust is also INVISIBLE until it hits the ground many frames later – we are not able to tell by what trajectory it arrived at its stationary destination.
-
Think about what you just wrote, and then deal with what Mag40 just showed you.
Done, and thank you for the kind tone of your response. I've thought about it and reviewed it on paper. My belief is that if a 200 lb man is lifted upwards by 100 lbs of force, this will enable him to jump higher more easily... and that once he lifts off the ground, he'll follow a slower parabola than without the weight. Since this 200 lb man only has a net downward force of 100 lbs, this simulates "half-gravity" which slows things down to about 70%.
Lunar gravity is then simulated as a combination of "partial lifting force" and reducing the playback speed by about 45%. (instead of 60%).
Without any upward lift at all, the film replay would need to be reduced by 60%.
MLH theory is that it was a combination of the two... so that they didn't need to apply such dramatic upward forces to achieve the desired result.
-
My belief is that if a 200 lb man is lifted..........
Your ignorance is really showing. The suit and backpack had a mass of 200lbs. You're basically saying John Young had a mass of zero.
-
My belief is that if a 200 lb man is lifted..........
Your ignorance is really showing. The suit and backpack had a mass of 200lbs. You're basically saying John Young had a mass of zero.
Read it again - I said "Fake suit" - In my world, he's not lugging around this 180 lb suit. So I was just estimating 30 lbs to keep the # simple, since the astronauts were around 170 lbs (many of them).
So want to apologize? :) I could say "your bad reading skills are showing" but I won't. :)
-
So want to apologize?
You'll really want to apologise when you see the full TV sequence at the flag. It's quite clear the astronauts are in a low-gravity vacuum environment as they move around.
-
You'll really want to apologise when you see the full TV sequence at the flag. It's quite clear the astronauts are in a low-gravity vacuum environment as they move around.
You make a lot of allusions... as though you are sitting on wisdom -- but never say anything of substance. If you think something will impact me - why didn't you shared the link so I could see it?
Please put more substance into your responses, so that we can know what magic wisdom resides in your superior brain. :)
-
Find it yourself. It's not hard.
-
You'll really want to apologise when you see the full TV sequence at the flag. It's quite clear the astronauts are in a low-gravity vacuum environment as they move around.
You make a lot of allusions... as though you are sitting on wisdom -- but never say anything of substance. If you think something will impact me - why didn't you shared the link so I could see it?
Please put more substance into your responses, so that we can know what magic wisdom resides in your superior brain. :)
Do some real research instead of parroting some other willfully ignorant individual to find the real answer. I have view Jet's work in the past and find it without merit. It is too bad he hitched onto the Conspiracy instead of in depth analysis of the aspects he describes.
Your brain is inferior concerning Apollo as your posts have identified.
-
Do some real research instead of parroting some other willfully ignorant individual to find the real answer. I have view Jet's work in the past and find it without merit. It is too bad he hitched onto the Conspiracy instead of in depth analysis of the aspects he describes.
Your brain is inferior concerning Apollo as your posts have identified.
Jet isn't so smart, and lacks the skills to do what he's set out to do. Most of his first video was utter crap. I only reference his 2017 presentation of the Apollo 14 flag motion, as it seems that the evidence he's pointed to in this case is legit. I don't see anyone debunking the core claim here - "how did the flag get PULLED back to the LM?" But this is OFF-TOPIC, as my reference to Jet is in the other thread, not here.
For the "sand falling" - I did ALL of my own research here - compiled into this KB.. I went to the NASA published source, and used VLC to capture all source frames, for analysis inside KRITA (free tool, so others can open my file and check my work). Check it out:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aos6_EqxlNfpLUGoSSemppmw_lUjl0hiby99szCKYi4/edit?usp=drive_link (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aos6_EqxlNfpLUGoSSemppmw_lUjl0hiby99szCKYi4/edit?usp=drive_link)
-
Find it yourself. It's not hard.
If you aren't here to contribute, please don't comment. You implying you are sitting on "secret wisdom" is an old tactic frequently employed by people sitting on little-to-nothing. That'll be my base assumption of you, until you prove otherwise. I've been doing PLENTY of work here, and no where have I seen a legitimate explanation for "How did the Flag flow TOWARDS the LM?" This is a smoking gun proof that "something is amiss."
-
Find it yourself. It's not hard.
If you aren't here to contribute, please don't comment. You implying you are sitting on "secret wisdom" is an old tactic frequently employed by people sitting on little-to-nothing. That'll be my base assumption of you, until you prove otherwise. I've been doing PLENTY of work here, and no where have I seen a legitimate explanation for "How did the Flag flow TOWARDS the LM?" This is a smoking gun proof that "something is amiss."
Your work is poor just like your understanding. Sand here on Earth is in an air environment that provides a small restriction to falling. Because the Lunar environment is essentially nil, there is no restive force to it falling, No the astronaut was not suspended. You are really poor at this.
-
Your work is poor just like your understanding. Sand here on Earth is in an air environment that provides a small restriction to falling. Because the Lunar environment is essentially nil, there is no restive force to it falling, No the astronaut was not suspended. You are really poor at this.
Are you saying that Dust vs. the Astronaut, even though they start rising in unison, at the same speed, that the Dust will fall faster because there's no air to stop it?
Did you ever take Physics in school? What was your grade? You seem to have no grasp of the basics.
@Kiwi -- please save these guys. Can you say something intelligent here? I didn't come here to berate people for being bad at science -- I came here for intelligent debate -- and so far finding no one with an adequate skillset in physics or logic. I want a smart debate with competent science minds.
-
"physics"
You have provided absolutely no evidence that the dust rose as high as the astronaut. You have failed to account for the fact that some dust was kicked forward and would have obviously landed BEFORE the astronaut. You have failed to account for the poor quality of the TV camera versus the 70mm still photography. You have failed to examine the whole clip which shows the dust behaving exactly as it should in a low-gravity vacuum environment. If the astronaut is on a wire then so is every particle of dust.
Physics is not on your side here. Just your bias.
-
Thanks for the attempt at debunking. This gave me some homework to do. I consider your "hippity hoppity" rebuttal as a failure.
And I know for a fact your rejection is the real failure.
Today I obtained the NASA source video for this clip, as well as the Navy salute, and captured all frames at native resolution, without modification.
What? The "source" video? Some of the best video has been reprocessed by Spacecraft Films without the impediments of internet compression.
1. Navy Salute - appears to be damning for the PNA's.
No it doesn't.
2. The Hippity Hoppity attempted rebuttal has a major flaw.
And again, no it doesn't.
I have placed all of my work on OneDrive
Well good for you, I am not interested in playing "go fetch", particularly given the poor quality understanding and regurgitated nature of your claims.
Check it out and let me know what you think:
Bring it here.
#1 - This dot stays nearly stationary and the same size for 10 frames! (1/3rd second)
If it was incoming sand, it would be moving along the ground.
This is the final part of the wave hitting the surface - a nonsense conclusion.
#2 - There is no sign of any dust coming in from above. It’s fully invisible, then this dot just magically appears, and stays nearly stationary for 10 frames, and PNA’s call it dust.
Grey on grey will do that and the TV quality was hardly HD. Another rather useless statement from you. It doesn't "magically appear", we clearly see it impact the surface. That's the nature of impacts.
#3 - Let’s imagine that this is dust (magical). As he’s hopping along, each time he has to kick his feet forward as part of the hopping motion. This kicking motion would cause some dust to have an added upward boost. But since this dust is also INVISIBLE until it hits the ground many frames later – we are not able to tell by what trajectory it arrived at its stationary destination.
That is just nonsense. You can see very clearly that there is a parabolic arc of dust level and below his boot, when he is at apex. In that one frame the laws of physics are very specific. Objects will reach the same height at the same time - that single irrefutable point, all on its own shows this is on the Moon. Clearly he is jumping in a way that is impossible on Earth without assistance. Yet his vertical jump time matches the dust parabola. So either he is not on wires or the dust is also.
When we also marry his subsequent surface impact with the dust this just seals the deal.
Any physicist would understand this.
Here is the real spoiler that an observant person would have noticed - the same simultaneous dust splash occurs on the jump before.
-
My belief is that if a 200 lb man.
Clearly visible is the mass of the PLSS. It significantly drags as he jumps up and significantly carries on moving when he lands. Your belief carries no authority.
Lunar gravity is then simulated as a combination of "partial lifting force" and reducing the playback speed by about 45%. (instead of 60%).
And all of it debunked by a simple little dust parabola between his boots.
(https://i.ibb.co/qrjRGpk/Jump.gif)
Now, everyone who sees this can see the parabolic arc of dust between his boots. Can you?
Again, it seems I'm dealing with people here who do not understand basic simple high school physics.
It's best not to patronise people from a position of weakness.
If the astronaut and fake-suit weigh 200 lbs combined
They don't.
-
@Mag40 - your GIF isn't showing "Source frames" - someone modified that.
NASA has the MPG you can download and see the real frames. It's what I did on my OneDrive account - all frames are there--- which don't match your GIF. You need to get a accurate GIF, or stop showing the lie here.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13PbDNid-AEWhkh8PA1IiUOx0PG7GRKO0/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/13PbDNid-AEWhkh8PA1IiUOx0PG7GRKO0/view?usp=drive_link)
Also to note, that there is a little dust between the legs that STARTS off with a higher velocity, as you can see it on frame 9 (0.3 seconds after the jump starts) -- thus this sand launched up faster than his feet, will stay up longer-- which is what you can see happening... but this dust started out rising faster.... as can be clearly seen from Frame 9 source shot.
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2019.0;attach=1196)
-
@Mag40 - your GIF isn't showing "Source frames" - someone modified that.
And straight from the HB playbook, "your footage" is faked!
NASA has the MPG you can download and see the real frames. It's what I did on my OneDrive account - all frames are there--- which don't match your GIF. You need to get a accurate GIF, or stop showing the lie here.
The gif takes enough frames to show the parabolic arc. Please try not to play the role of "expert" in your advice about where to get source material. I was looking at this more than 10 years ago.
Also to note, that there is a little dust between the legs that STARTS off with a higher velocity
All rather irrelevant. What happens to the dust when it is predominantly kicked forward against a grey background doesn't change the parabolic arc rising in perfect sync to the same height as his boots.
-
Your link is to someone's page. The official NASA footage can be found in the Surface Journal, here:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a16/a16.alsepoff.html (https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a16/a16.alsepoff.html)
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1202523.mpg (https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1202523.mpg)
If you've been doing this for 10 years, why are you not using the NASA MPG instead of someone else's where it may have been processed (and seems to have been).
-
@Mag40 - before I'm done with this topic, I'll do the frame analysis for the other videos where it's also obvious that the sand falls way too fast.
The source footage for the Navy Salute doesn't show this arc, like your footage from someone else. The source is what you should be using here, except you don't because it doesn't support your narrative.
-
Your link is to someone's page. The official NASA footage can be found in the Surface Journal, here:
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a16/a16.alsepoff.html (https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a16/a16.alsepoff.html)
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1202523.mpg (https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1202523.mpg)
If you've been doing this for 10 years, why are you not using the NASA MPG instead of someone else's where it may have been processed (and seems to have been).
I'm using footage supplied from video recorded during the mission - supplied by Dwight Steven-Boniecki - a renowned expert on Apollo TV.
The ALSJ uses highly compressed videos. I've told you the best source are the DVDs from Spacecraft films where the original signal itself is directly mapped onto media. There is a massive difference. If you have ever seen Apollo footage on a large HD screen it is considerably better and clearer than internet limiting footage.
Stop evading the issue. The footage provided is the clearest I have ever seen and shows clearly the parabolic arc. Can you see the parabola? Closes the case.
-
@Mag40 - before I'm done with this topic, I'll do the frame analysis for the other videos where it's also obvious that the sand falls way too fast.
That is completely irrelevant. Your failure to see the grey dust against a grey background is not "analysis". What we do see is in both instances a clear arc of dust at boot level whilst the astronaut is at apex. Now since you admitted time up = time down, it's not too difficult for anyone to reason that out.
The source footage for the Navy Salute doesn't show this arc, like your footage from someone else. The source is what you should be using here, except you don't because it doesn't support your narrative.
Your insistence that only you are capable of tracking down footage is another HB playbook statement. There are dozens of these on youtube and every single one shows the parabolic arc. The game is up and you are trying to wriggle out of it by claiming the lie about it being doctored.
Straight from NASA, clear as day!
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1202523.mpg
-
@Mag40 - OK, I've been under the impression that it's best to take stuff from the NASA source. I also know about SCF but they are out of commission and no longer shipping the films I want to get (e.g. Apollo 15 isn't even being made now).
You are telling that "Comedy Time Inc." with 82 subscribers is the BEST SOURCE for Apollo footage?
===
"Parabola" - yes I see the Parabola. Are you under the impression that earth's gravity doesn't also follow a parabola?
0.3 seconds after the jump starts, there is already dust that is about 5 inches above the bottom of his boot, which means it's initial velocity is more than the boot speed - and so is difficult to conclude anything from it. So we can instead look at the sand beneath the boot, which is rising with the boot bottom, at the same speed. It has all fallen back to the ground before John starts on his way back down. A clear sign that the gravity affecting the dust beneath him has significantly higher acceleration.
I'll bring in a few more shots before this is over, that might be more clear.
-
On your hippity Hoppity example -- the "dust dot" that you are so happy about, remains nearly stationary and exists for 10 frames in a row! ... 1/3rd of a second. THIS is NOT how dust behaves... it should only be showing for 3 frames at most, or if longer, needs to be moving... There's no way a single jump would launch a constant perfect stream of dust that lasted 1/3rd of a second.
So it simply cannot be dust.
===
Interestingly on the MPG from NASA has a 1 frame defect... Is this what you'd expect from "dust/blemish on the film"? (a sure sign of faking, as PNA's say as part of the reason we couldn't have faked it?)
How do you explain this big yellow strand?
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2019.0;attach=1198)
-
OK, I've been under the impression that it's best to take stuff from the NASA source.
There's multiple versions varying in quality. I just posted one direct from NASA and you appear to have just ignored it.
You are telling that "Comedy Time Inc." with 82 subscribers is the BEST SOURCE for Apollo footage?
I believe I said Dwight Steven-Boniecki because I know for a fact that is where it came from. On the old archived website a decade or more ago that was uploaded by him. I don't care about diversionary one frame artefacts or what footage you have downloaded.
"Parabola" - yes I see the Parabola. Are you under the impression that earth's gravity doesn't also follow a parabola?
Oh, I very much am not under that impression. What impression I am under is that it clearly rises in perfect sync with his boot. Time up=time down. So to make the parabola go up like Earth freefall, given that we are seeing very, very close to perfect lunar freefall, requires the jump to be altered at 245% - do you agree. If not explain why not.
The rest of your post is irrelevant, biased observational analysis on poor quality video.
Straight from NASA, clear as day!
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1202523.mpg
-
Why have you ignored this post?
Reply #22 on: Today at 09:55:44 AM
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg57711#msg57711
"That is just nonsense. You can see very clearly that there is a parabolic arc of dust level and below his boot, when he is at apex. In that one frame the laws of physics are very specific. Objects will reach the same height at the same time - that single irrefutable point, all on its own shows this is on the Moon. Clearly he is jumping in a way that is impossible on Earth without assistance. Yet his vertical jump time matches the dust parabola. So either he is not on wires or the dust is also.
When we also marry his subsequent surface impact with the dust this just seals the deal.
Any physicist would understand this.
Here is the real spoiler that an observant person would have noticed - the same simultaneous dust splash occurs on the jump before."
-
"Parabola" - yes I see the Parabola. Are you under the impression that earth's gravity doesn't also follow a parabola?
Oh, I very much am not under that impression. What impression I am under is that it clearly rises in perfect sync with his boot. Time up=time down. So to make the parabola go up like Earth freefall, given that we are seeing very, very close to perfect lunar freefall, requires the jump to be altered at 245% - do you agree. If not explain why not.
OK - so we agree that trajectories follow parabolas on both moon and earth. That's good.
I'll do a bit more research here, see if I can muster some frame captures to present.
The Hippity Gallop, has too much motion and chaos. The dust you are wanting to hang your hat on is clearly kicked with a measure of chaos, and in the context of "hopping" which REQUIRES him to kick his feet forward signficantly to catch his fall... it's this kick that causes chaos -- since the trajectory is INVISIBLE, we cannot trace a parabola, including the "initial velocity"..
You belief that this unclear footage is a "case closed" - either demonstrates controlling confirmation bias, or ineptness at logic/analysis. I think your skills are lacking.
I'll pull up the instances that I've seen presented by others that are close-up, and where trajectories of dust can be more clearly seen. Then we can assess those.
===
Also, in most cases, the MLH theory isn't 40% slowdown.... but something less. MLH theory is that the upward force is NOT 83% of their mass, but something closer to HALF...
The only time they need to slow down to 40% is for Projectiles with Sideways motion.... otherwise, it can be shown that the parabola doesn't match Lunar gravity. So get this "40% fixed slowdown" claim out of your head -- this is not the MLH claim, except for a few rare instances.
-
OK - so we agree that trajectories follow parabolas on both moon and earth. That's good.
Don't play this ridiculous patronising game. "We" aren't agreeing the obvious. You asked a foolish question as a means to divert.
I'll do a bit more research here, see if I can muster some frame captures to present.
I am going to assume it will concentrate on fudging the conclusion. Everyone can see the nice little parabolic arc going up in perfect sync with his boots. All your rhetoric is irrelevant, about how the dust disappears - grey on grey - when even that is debatable with visible ground shadows moving.
The Hippity Gallop, has too much motion and chaos.
Nope.
The dust you are wanting to hang your hat on is clearly kicked with a measure of chaos, and in the context of "hopping" which REQUIRES him to kick his feet forward signficantly to catch his fall... it's this kick that causes chaos -- since the trajectory is INVISIBLE, we cannot trace a parabola, including the "initial velocity"
Your powers of obfuscation far exceed your observation. There are a number of significant and visible indicators. We see the same dust splashes on the two jumps before as he lands. The freeze frame of the last full jump clearly shows a wave of dust as high as his boot. His motion has no tell-tale signs of a wire harness. Even a student of physics can understand that a moving invisible support will create a centre-of-gravity changing jerkiness that is most certainly not there on the footage. Cernan arrives at this point from something like 100 yards away.
(https://i.ibb.co/vkXZd4X/Apex.png)
You belief that this unclear footage is a "case closed" - either demonstrates controlling confirmation bias, or ineptness at logic/analysis. I think your skills are lacking.
Hot air, another speciality of the HB. My skills are showing you the door. That's 3 pieces of short lunar activity that prove lower gravity and every one of them, you are trying to fudge away. That's another thing HBs excel at. And don't you dare lecture me on logic! The whole concept of later missions, sodding about with variable speed, staging little throwing clips and dust kicking is absurd all on its own, without the risks inherent in actually continuing to do mission-faking when it wasn't needed. I wish Dwight Steven-Boniecki was here to explain how the video speed changing would be totally obvious - maybe one of the other specialists can explain this for you (to dismiss!).
Also, in most cases, the MLH theory isn't 40% slowdown.... but something less. MLH theory is that the upward force is NOT 83% of their mass, but something closer to HALF...
The only time they need to slow down to 40% is for Projectiles with Sideways motion.... otherwise, it can be shown that the parabola doesn't match Lunar gravity. So get this "40% fixed slowdown" claim out of your head -- this is not the MLH claim, except for a few rare instances.
Magic video technology claim incoming, as a means to obfuscate evidence that any competent physicist would find irrefutable.
-
Magic video technology claim incoming, as a means to obfuscate evidence that any competent physicist would find irrefutable.
Your original "smoking gun" video showed dust for which there is no trace of the trajectory -- appearing in nearly the same location for 10 frames! And confirming this as "smoking gun dust"... but dust kicked up and landing at the same time wouldn't appear near-stationary for 1/3rd of a second. Any legitimate physicist would confirm this for you.
Do you REALLY think those 10 frames accurately depict DUST? How do you explain the "near stationary continuous appearance for 1/3rd of a second"? Wouldn't there be more chaos here... more a dispersion/splatter... instead it's focused down to a small cluster of darkened dots -- there for longer than what would be real.
This is the evidence you asked me to consider, and then insult me for not accepting it as "smoking gun evidence". It hardly appears as evidence at all.
-
@Mag40 wrote: "Dwight Steven-Boniecki was here to explain how the video speed changing would be totally obvious "
===
Since this claim of optical printing method to calibrate frame speeds more gradually has been around for many years -- why do you need him "here"-- hasn't he already debunked this elsewhere? Just post the link, and it'll be "just like he was here".
I'll capture all of this inside of a KB (knowledgebase) doc, for future reference.
-
Your original "smoking gun" video showed dust for which there is no trace of the trajectory
That's bullshit. There is a visible wave at boot level and 3 simultaneous splashes on the surface for his landing.
-- appearing in nearly the same location for 10 frames!
And?
And confirming this as "smoking gun dust"... but dust kicked up and landing at the same time wouldn't appear near-stationary for 1/3rd of a second.
Your expectations of lunar activity and what that specific camera would pick up are irrelevant. You are deliberately ignoring the simultaneous event at landing on this jump and the two preceding it, plus the visible arc at apex. It is clearly visible as it lands in a splashing action.
Any legitimate physicist would confirm this for you.
Nope. I can confirm that you are obfuscating and wriggling because the game is up with just a few simple opening salvos.
How do you explain the "near stationary continuous appearance for 1/3rd of a second"?
I don't need to explain it. You do. Then you need to establish that your explanation is accurate and how it dismisses the claim.
Wouldn't there be more chaos here... more a dispersion/splatter... instead it's focused down to a small cluster of darkened dots -- there for longer than what would be real.
Just more begging the question. I can assure you that nobody cares about your expectations or casual dismissal.
This is the evidence you asked me to consider, and then insult me for not accepting it as "smoking gun evidence". It hardly appears as evidence at all.
Hand waving is the tool of the HB. Don't you dare lecture me on "insulting" you. Your rudeness in just a few days has been distasteful and needless, how everyone is incompetent at physics except you, yet here I am showing you the door with 3 simple clips.
I have a fourth one that is a real classic.
-
Since this claim of optical printing method to calibrate frame speeds more gradually has been around for many years -- why do you need him "here"-- hasn't he already debunked this elsewhere? Just post the link, and it'll be "just like he was here".
It's to do with the colour-wheels and I cannot be bothered wading through thousands of forum pages to find it!
I'll capture all of this inside of a KB (knowledgebase) doc, for future reference.
You do that. Nobody cares.
-
Wouldn't there be more chaos here... more a dispersion/splatter... instead it's focused down to a small cluster of darkened dots -- there for longer than what would be real.
Just more begging the question. I can assure you that nobody cares about your expectations or casual dismissal.
OK - re-reviewed this footage, and I see a potential explanation for this 10 frames of dust/splash. It's not coming from "a parabola" but appears to be hovering around the ground (rolling/bouncing, but not sticking, due to it's horizontal velocity component).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kpVswUwRBNivmXDAcOJJEbeLZHAzTuou/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kpVswUwRBNivmXDAcOJJEbeLZHAzTuou/view?usp=drive_link)
To the right of the "dust splash", you can see the residue from the initial jump, moving along the ground, and ending in this splash.... so the dust trail all hits the same place, due to a likely obstruction on the ground (raised part, catches the dust, and the rest then just follows).
Here's I've captured Frames 31 and 32:
31 - no signs of any dust coming from above, but the aberration of dust moving along the ground is to the right.
32 - first sign of dust splash beginning -- as the dust from the right, disappears right into it.. frame by frame (moving to the left)
So the dust is real, not faked, but is best explained by dust scuttling along the ground until it comes to a stop, which happens at this highpoint.
Prior frames show this dust Falling Far Too Fast from Boot Level to Ground... before it scuttles forward until it reaches this stopping point.
Here's the KRITA frame capture again for reference. The Frame #'s are shown at far right. (in MP4, 26 second mark)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kpVswUwRBNivmXDAcOJJEbeLZHAzTuou/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kpVswUwRBNivmXDAcOJJEbeLZHAzTuou/view?usp=drive_link)
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2019.0;attach=1204)
-
OK - re-reviewed this footage, and I see a potential explanation for this 10 frames of dust/splash. It's not coming from "a parabola" but appears to be hovering around the ground (rolling/bouncing, but not sticking, due to it's horizontal velocity component).
And once again you have ignored the significant part of it. Irrefutably, there is a dust wave level with his boot:
(https://i.ibb.co/vkXZd4X/Apex.png)
I don't care about your "analysis" of clear dust striking the surface with no dust suspension and fine enough that it disperses immediately. It happens on each of the hops. It happens as he lands.
So we have visual confirmation the dust is at boot height at apex and we have visual confirmation it hits the ground on landing for 3 jumps. Whatever fudging you are doing it isn't going to wash. A competent scientist doesn't do that, they don't try to fix their conclusion to a prior fixated belief.
His motion has no tell-tale signs of a wire harness. Even a student of physics can understand that a moving invisible support will create a centre-of-gravity changing jerkiness that is most certainly not there on the footage. Cernan arrives at this point from something like 100 yards away.
-
When are you going to address (fudge) the irrefutable parabola rising to boot level in perfect sync with John Young's boots?
-
And once again you have ignored the significant part of it. Irrefutably, there is a dust wave level with his boot:
(https://i.ibb.co/vkXZd4X/Apex.png)
I see that dust rising to boot level.. and 7 frames later - it's ALREADY ON THE GROUND! This proves a mismatch in gravity... Cernan is suspended.
Now this dust on the ground has forward velocity, so bounds/scuttles along the ground until it collides with a high point, which creates the small splash.
As you can see ... EVERY TIME the dust is off-the-ground, it appears DARK. Yet we see no "parabolic motion of dust landing on the splash location"... instead we only see the dust that is "already at ground level" scuttle into a single point.
If it was dropping from high onto this spot, we'd see SOMETHING, but we do not.
So as you advised, Mr. Scientist, it's time to change your hypothesis/theory, to match the actual evidence.
This is 7 frames after your frame above... he's still in the air:
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2019.0;attach=1208)
-
And two more frames later -- he's still soaring high, and the dust along the ground is almost invisible... But we can watch it scuttle along until it hit the highpoint, which becomes the splash.
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2019.0;attach=1210)
-
For the Big Navy Salute, there is a cluster of dust that has been kicked up FASTER than his boot, as can be seen here 4 frames after he leaves the ground.
This dust (circled) CLEARLY had a faster initial upwards velocity - or we wouldn't see it here ABOVE the bottom of his boots, by about 5"...
So does some dust appear to fall more in line with John -- yes -- it's THIS small amount of dust -- which is why you can HARDLY see it. (if at all)
Here, notice the circled cluster of dust - higher than the boot bottom:
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2019.0;attach=1216)
Here, John is still at his peak, while there is NO SIGN OF DUST in the air at all. Sure, you might be able to see a TINY BIT (questionably) -- but if it's there, it's explained by the dust that was kicked up higher than the boot.
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2019.0;attach=1214)
It's also explainable, if it's scant, by atmosphere -- when slows the fall of smaller particles...
Either way, your "proof fails miserably", but the evidence of "Sand falling way faster than the astronaut is clear as day" -- it's time for you to reconsider your conclusions here.
-
Here's a link to MP4 where I show all frames of the Salute, in source resolution from NASA mpg:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13PbDNid-AEWhkh8PA1IiUOx0PG7GRKO0/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/13PbDNid-AEWhkh8PA1IiUOx0PG7GRKO0/view?usp=drive_link)
-
For the Big Navy Salute, there is a cluster of dust that has been kicked up FASTER than his boot, as can be seen here 4 frames after he leaves the ground.
I can see a blob on a crusty old copy of the footage! You are also deceptively putting up images that are not at apex, where quite obviously we see the nice neat little parabola of dust in perfect sync with his boots.
(https://i.ibb.co/qrjRGpk/Jump.gif)
Either way, your "proof fails miserably", but the evidence of "Sand falling way faster than the astronaut is clear as day" -- it's time for you to reconsider your conclusions here.
Dust is grey on grey. Your failure to see this is irrelevant. What we can see however, and very clearly, is the shading on the ground of the dust kicked forwards. My proof is yet to be addressed, your fudging obfuscation means nothing.
-
You are also deceptively putting up images that are not at apex,
My footage is raw unmodified frame captures of the MPG from the NASA site.
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a16/video16.html (https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a16/video16.html)
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1202523.mpg (https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1202523.mpg)
Yours appears to be "damage control", by PNA's wanting to maintain their faith.
Or if you accept yours as real, we have the CLEAR evidence that by Frame 4 after liftoff, we have that whole cluster of dust that has outpaced the boot -- it starts with a faster upward velocity.... and in an atmosphere, smaller particles will fall slower.... which would explain why it's so faint (in your movie, not the one from NASA site).
Meanwhile, we have all of the other mass of dust that rises with the boot, falling far too quickly - which you entirely ignore.
====
Nevertheless, I think I have a better example to show you soon. We'll see how that turns out.
-
My footage is raw unmodified frame captures of the MPG from the NASA site.[p/quote]
NASA has numerous versions of the footage of various compression, frame rates, version number (copy of copy), you chose the crustiest I have seen and as I said you deceptively snapped something not at apex.
Yours appears to be "damage control", by PNA's wanting to maintain their faith.
Mine shows the clearest footage of all, recorded straight on to VCR. Your hand-waving is not going to wash. It is you frantically trying to avoid addressing the proof that any honest physics student would recognise.
Or if you accept yours as real, we have the CLEAR evidence that by Frame 4 after liftoff, we have that whole cluster of dust that has outpaced the boot -- it starts with a faster upward velocity.... and in an atmosphere, smaller particles will fall slower.... which would explain why it's so faint (in your movie, not the one from NASA site).
Completely irrelevant obfuscation. Accept mine "as real"? What a ridiculous thing to say and very indicative of any potential concession for a single thing. I don't believe anything will be sufficient to alter your preconceived and ill-informed belief.
Meanwhile, we have all of the other mass of dust that rises with the boot, falling far too quickly - which you entirely ignore.
A lie. I have stated several times that it is grey on grey and your assessment of its dispersal is meaningless. You have failed to reply honestly to the observation that there is clearly a shaded area that moves forwards during his jump.
(https://i.ibb.co/3BrqmH4/Jump-2-sand-falls-quickly.gif)
Nevertheless, I think I have a better example to show you soon. We'll see how that turns out.
How about you address the irrefutable boot-high parabola that obviously rises at the same speed as he does?
-
I see that dust rising to boot level.. and 7 frames later - it's ALREADY ON THE GROUND! This proves a mismatch in gravity... Cernan is suspended.
Demonstrating that you do not understand Newtonian physics. Time up = time down. You don't get to suggest your inability to see dust dispersal grey on grey means anything.
Proven and admitted. The dust wave rises to apex at the same time.
Now this dust on the ground has forward velocity, so bounds/scuttles along the ground until it collides with a high point, which creates the small splash.
The 3 dust splashes are icing on the cake that you don't seem qualified to understand.
So as you advised, Mr. Scientist, it's time to change your hypothesis/theory, to match the actual evidence.
Your pathetic patronising is beyond tedious. Your hand-waving continues.
Clearly from the footage, we see the wave splashing across the surface. His approach is one continuous sequence so don't insult everyone by suggesting the old speed-up slow-down with the video.
I don't care if you are man enough to concede or have the appropriate understanding. Once we see his jump rising at apex synchronised to a parabolic wave of dust, we know it is either also on wires, or he isn't!
-
Proven and admitted. The dust wave rises to apex at the same time.
Your scientific fallacy here is "rise up time = fall time" is false, where a vacuum force are acting on the dust as it rises (max vacuum pressure peak 14 PSI), pulling it upwards.
So in this atmosphere, especially with a wide-flat boot - there is more vacuum effect. (low-pressure causes force, like a vacuum cleaner)
The fact that the dust rises with the boot so well, is also an indicator of atmosphere, required to achieve this vacuum suction, pulling up the dust as the boot leaves the ground.
Argument is strong that for the Navy Salute, the dust beneath the boot shouldn't be rising that much... so why does it? Vacuum effect -- only possible in an atmosphere with high PSI (14 PSI earth). There is an adhesion argument here, but with dry/heavy/hard play sand like particles - there is very very little adhesion to speak of ... not enough to justify so much dust rising beneath the boot, as fast as the boot.
Your volleyball video involves much narrower feet with toes pointed down... MUCH less vacuum effect here.
Here's a video that covers the topic. Learn this, then incorporate it into your thinking.
https://youtu.be/xReTQzdocdA (https://youtu.be/xReTQzdocdA)
-
A vacuum is not a force, basic physics 101.
-
A vacuum is not a force, basic physics 101.
Correct, and I knew this. Vacuum creates a PSI force imbalance by removing PSI from one side, and the other side's PSI "pushes" it towards the vacuum as a result. When someone talks of a "vacuum force", this is what they mean -- it's an atmospheric force "Imbalance".
Using the term "Vacuum Suction Force" or just "Vacuum Force" is a widespread practice. It's a simplification for laymen -- an easier model to wrap your head around.
Here's an article using the term:
https://eurotech-vacuum-technologies.com/how-to-calculate-vacuum-suction-force-to-find-appropriate-suction-cups/ (https://eurotech-vacuum-technologies.com/how-to-calculate-vacuum-suction-force-to-find-appropriate-suction-cups/)
It's nice to meet you. I hope you have more to contribute here.
-
Your scientific fallacy here is "rise up time = fall time" is false, where a vacuum force are acting on the dust as it rises (max vacuum pressure peak 14 PSI), pulling it upwards.
Bollocks. The main thing pulling the sand or dust upwards is friction.
The fact that the dust rises with the boot so well, is also an indicator of atmosphere, required to achieve this vacuum suction, pulling up the dust as the boot leaves the ground.
More bollocks, it's mainly friction. Tell me about John Young's second jump.
Argument is strong that for the Navy Salute, the dust beneath the boot shouldn't be rising that much... so why does it? Vacuum effect -- only possible in an atmosphere with high PSI (14 PSI earth). There is an adhesion argument here, but with dry/heavy/hard play sand like particles - there is very very little adhesion to speak of ... not enough to justify so much dust rising beneath the boot, as fast as the boot.
Pure ignorance. The regolith contains very fine, light, jagged particulate, static electricity and friction.
Your volleyball video involves much narrower feet with toes pointed down... MUCH less vacuum effect here.
Obfuscating the point. The sand isn't visible going down.
Learn this, then incorporate it into your thinking.
Don't patronise me. You have nowhere to go. Three simple clips and all you can do is throw diversion at them.
-
Learn this, then incorporate it into your thinking.
Don't patronise me. You have nowhere to go. Three simple clips and all you can do is throw diversion at them.
If you incorporate the vacuum force into MLH theory, as you should, then this explains clearly why the dust rises WITH the boot, but then falls much more quickly than does the bottom of the boot. Vacuum dissipates as the boot slows down, and the dust falls very fast.
The volleyball video shows that the sand does NOT rise with the foot much at all-- because with narrow feet pointing downwards - there is very little vacuum effect, compared to a much larger flat-footed wide boot. And so the absence of sand rising with most volleyball jumps is evidence that this rise works better with a vacuum involved... which is mostly missing from this volleyball context. More evidence here of MLH.
"Diversion" -- nope. Until you incorporate Vacuum force into your argument/reasoning -- it is you were are running from the evidence/science, because it doesn't align with your current beliefs.
Do you admit that a vacuum force within earth's atmosphere would cause extra lift to the dust beneath the boot as it rises?
If so, then you need to incorporate it, and alter your argument, else you'll be disingenuous.
If not -- then I'd like to know which other PNA's (Pro-Nasa Apollogists) reading this, agree with you. Or if any PNA's would like to correct your error in thought.
-
If you incorporate the vacuum force into MLH theory, as you should, then this explains clearly why the dust rises WITH the boot, but then falls much more quickly than does the bottom of the boot. Vacuum dissipates as the boot slows down, and the dust falls very fast.
Friction and static electricity.
The volleyball video shows that the sand does NOT rise with the foot much at all...
Deliberately missing the point made. The sand dissipates invisibly, sand against a sandy background. Your failure to see this on Apollo means nothing at all.
Do you admit that a vacuum force within earth's atmosphere would cause extra lift to the dust beneath the boot as it rises?
Well sure very slightly. It may even contribute to it rising as high as the foot, negating atmospheric impedance.
If so, then you need to incorporate it, and alter your argument, else you'll be disingenuous.
Right after you quantify exactly how much it effects fine particles and the impedance of the atmosphere offset against it.
If not -- then I'd like to know which other PNA's (Pro-Nasa Apollogists) reading this, agree with you. Or if any PNA's would like to correct your error in thought.
Trolling. Nobody here is a Pro Nasa "apollogist" and your poor manners show no signs of abating. I've let myself get irritated by it to a small extent.
-
Do you admit that a vacuum force within earth's atmosphere would cause extra lift to the dust beneath the boot as it rises?
Well sure very slightly. It may even contribute to it rising as high as the foot, negating atmospheric impedance.
If so, then you need to incorporate it, and alter your argument, else you'll be disingenuous.
Right after you quantify exactly how much it effects fine particles and the impedance of the atmosphere offset against it.
I didn't realize "Apollogist" was offensive - I thought it seems accurate. Those who defend Biblical faith, call themselves Apologists. So figured the term is non-offensive, and also a wonderful play on homonym. What about it do you find offensive?
The force of vacuum on earth is up to 14 PSI which is enough to blow a person apart if subjected to it... that operates over a longer distance even.
The "air impedance" you mention is ALREADY figured in to vacuum force... the particles are moving into a vacuum/low-pressure where air impedance is much less.
So for now I won't argue "impossible on the moon", but only "this is how we should EXPECT it to work on earth with 14 PSI atmosphere, and a large wide boot." Thus "rise up = fall down" are not so symmetric.
-
The force of vacuum on earth is up to 14 PSI which is enough to blow a person apart if subjected to it... that operates over a longer distance even.
Your ability to conflate knows no bounds. Are you seriously suggesting that a small drop in pressure from something exiting a specific space is a 14 psi to a vacuum in difference?
The "air impedance" you mention is ALREADY figured in to vacuum force... the particles are moving into a vacuum/low-pressure where air impedance is much less.
What vacuum! There is no vacuum. There is a small drop in pressure.
The main effects causing dust to rise are friction and static.
So for now I won't argue "impossible on the moon", but only "this is how we should EXPECT it to work on earth with 14 PSI atmosphere, and a large wide boot." Thus "rise up = fall down" are not so symmetric.
I'm more convinced than ever that you are wasting my time. You show no capacity to accept evidence and immediately fudge and obfuscate.
I missed your reply to the sentence: Right after you quantify exactly how much it effects fine particles and the impedance of the atmosphere offset against it.
-
I'm more convinced than ever that you are wasting my time. You show no capacity to accept evidence and immediately fudge and obfuscate.
Ditto. It's why I'm calling for some 3rd party member with strong skills and who isn't afraid to contract a fellow PNA.
One thing I'll say is that you are correct about the "slight drop in PSI"... although the immediate effect at liftoff, is MORE like a dart suction cup, due to the absence of air... so when you first lift from the ground, the suction for that first instant is MUCH higher. Like pulling the suction dart off of a window...
Thank you for your correction... after the first instant where contact is broken, the PSI differential drops substantially (to well under 1 PSI).
So MOST of the upward force of the dust is created during the first instant via this tight suction.
I missed your reply to the sentence: Right after you quantify exactly how much it effects fine particles and the impedance of the atmosphere offset against it.
So let me revise my previous statement. In the wake of the boot rising, there is *enough* PSI to cause air-currents to follow the boot. Thus the particles are simply "traveling with the air speed". I won't claim much "added acceleration" during this ascent, but will claim that the upwards air current (which is CERTAIN) eliminates the "air impedence" entirely -- as Dust and Air are moving at the same speed in unison.
This Initial Suction impact, which is considerable, only exists with Atmosphere. A suction dart will NOT have ANY adherence to a window on the moon -- suction power would be 0!
While for earth, the STARTING suction power would be substantial... which could be closer to 14 PSI (never more). On the moon, this substantial starting force is entirely missing.
-
Ditto. It's why I'm calling for some 3rd party member with strong skills and who isn't afraid to contract a fellow PNA.
I appear to be the only one who can be bothered with your antics.
One thing I'll say is that you are correct about the "slight drop in PSI"... although the immediate effect at liftoff, is MORE like a dart suction cup, due to the absence of air... so when you first lift from the ground, the suction for that first instant is MUCH higher. Like pulling the suction dart off of a window...
Complete nonsense. There is no "suction" going on. There is an object (the foot). It is in a space. It moves and there is a very, very slight Bernoulli-style pressure drop.
Thank you for your correction... after the first instant where contact is broken, the PSI differential drops substantially (to well under 1 PSI).
Pretty much negligible compared to the effect of the friction which is what we are seeing.
So MOST of the upward force of the dust is created during the first instant via this tight suction.
Bollocks.
So let me revise my previous statement. In the wake of the boot rising, there is *enough* PSI to cause air-currents to follow the boot.
So what.
Thus the particles are simply "traveling with the air speed".
My god, and this is your "Physics" conclusion is it? The air speed is going to be less than the foot speed and will drag virtually nothing.
I won't claim much "added acceleration" during this ascent
Good. I will claim virtually none and cancelled out by air resistance.
, but will claim that the upwards air current (which is CERTAIN) eliminates the "air impedence" entirely -- as Dust and Air are moving at the same speed in unison.
More bollocks. What the hell kind of physics are you talking about. This is like the barest flimsiest of pressure differentials not Hurricane bloody Katrina!
This Initial Suction impact
Nope. No meaningful suction. Just a flimsy pressure drop.
which is considerable
Complete bollocks.
only exists with Atmosphere. A suction dart will NOT have ANY adherence to a window on the moon -- suction power would be 0!
Obfuscation and irrelevant.
While for earth, the STARTING suction power would be substantial... which could be closer to 14 PSI (never more). On the moon, this substantial starting force is entirely missing.
What the hell are you talking about! There is no suction. There is a tiny pressure drop as the foot vacates a space. It's like wafting your hand across the ground.at the same speed as the jump. You'd move barely a few grains of sand - if vertical you would not even get them off of the surface.
I've seen some desperate attempts to "explain" stuff in the past, but this one is the pinnacle of absurd exaggeration and poor understanding.
Try harder.
Time up = time down and your ridiculous "suction-cup" baloney is not cutting it.
-
deleted post The way I read it I thought it pertained to the ascent engine.
-
Time up = time down and your ridiculous "suction-cup" baloney is not cutting it.
My "suction" hypothesis is just that - hypothesis. In the absence of articles to source our ideas, seems like we're both hypothesizing here.
Likewise, your claim of friction seems like a worse hypothesis to me.. How do you propose horizontal friction will result in vertical motion?
Perhaps the best hypothesis is adhesion. If you can find an article on this, great, share it, and I'll learn from it.
Where does that leave us?
1. The sand rises to the same level as the bottom of the boot. Why?
2. A wide boot rising DOES cause an upcurrent of air - and this would reduce air impedence. Do you disagree?
3. IF there are forces pulling it up as it rises (e.g. impact of low-pressure) - this alters the parabola (which only applies if Gravity-alone operates on it)
Other considerations:
1. As we see with "the Salute" we see to the inside of the Left Boot Dust rising FASTER than the boot - which indicates that within the chaos at lift off, somehow, some dust was launched FASTER than the boot. If on the moon - this would result in that sand going considerably HIGHER than the boot rise, and would fall AFTER the boot falls.
2. When we see the darkness beneath Cernan's foot, we have no idea if any of this dust was also, like with Young, kicked up faster than the boot rise...
3. For BOTH cases, Cernan and Young - we do see the dust that was even with the bottom of the boot fall way faster than the boot. This is NOT how it should work on the moon.
Your example of volleyball jump showed sand that rose much LESS than the foot... so doesn't match what we see with these lunar clips.
Here is a clip of a volleyball jump that caused the sand to rise as high as the foot (or a bit higher) -- and as we can see it fall WITH the foot, NOT BEFORE. This is a rule.
Generally, "Time Up = Time Down" -- both foot and sand rose together -- and fell together. But with Cernan and Young, they do not.
https://youtu.be/XLjPKjppy_0?t=21 (https://youtu.be/XLjPKjppy_0?t=21)
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2019.0;attach=1220)
IN SHORT - what force made the sand rise isn't vital to the argument. It's secondary. And we're both just guessing at this point. But we do know that Dust that rises with the bottom of the foot, should fall with the bottom of the foot. And that this dust, when in the air, always looks DARK... you can see it when elevated above the ground.
-
The force of vacuum on earth is up to 14 PSI which is enough to blow a person apart if subjected to it
Complete rubbish. Your so-called grasp of basic physics is letting you down. Again
-
The force of vacuum on earth is up to 14 PSI which is enough to blow a person apart if subjected to it
Complete rubbish. Your so-called grasp of basic physics is letting you down. Again
Thanks for chiming in! Yeah, you got me. I was pulling from fiction here.
And if you read on, you'll see that my assumption of "significantly low-pressure in the wake of a boot jump" was also wrong (self-corrected from just looking up the vacuum created behind a 60mph flat-backed van).
And I'm also not sure about the immediate "suction event" on lift-off, if such a factor occurs in this context (with air present).
We are admittedly spit balling hypotheses, in the absence of not being able to find an article online that discusses this (that I can find yet).
Do you have any idea about what are the true factors that contribute to making "sand rise in the wake of the foot"? My next best guess is "adhesion".
@Mag40 thinks it's friction and static electricity. What say you about these hypotheses?
I don't see how one could surmise that "horizontally applied friction, results in a matching upward motion". Do you?
-
New Sample Case - partly completed.
Here is the Sample KRITA video:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JRjdohQ0cXftl_feaVeMT1rdYSlkS7mS/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JRjdohQ0cXftl_feaVeMT1rdYSlkS7mS/view?usp=drive_link)
This one is close-up from the side - so we can witness the forward motion of the sand with certainty. This dust rises with the boot, and then Falls way faster than this astronaut.
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2019.0;attach=1222)
The working folder of FrameCaps and KRITA project and this MP4 are all here:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1H9HM4amvj8hyCHa1_3vg79uXdZeLav8V?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1H9HM4amvj8hyCHa1_3vg79uXdZeLav8V?usp=drive_link)
Footage Reference: Jump start at 2:18, video name: a16v.1464821.mpg
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a16/video16.html#station8 (https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a16/video16.html#station8)
Journal Text: 146:48:21 3 minutes 44 seconds ( RealVideo Clip: 1.0 Mb or MPG Video Clip: 33 Mb ). Both clips by Ken Glover.
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1464821.mpg (https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1464821.mpg)
-
Complete rubbish. Your so-called grasp of basic physics is letting you down. Again
I'd like to hear your views on this most recent example that I've shown here.
-
A lie. I have stated several times that it is grey on grey and your assessment of its dispersal is meaningless. You have failed to reply honestly to the observation that there is clearly a shaded area that moves forwards during his jump.
(https://i.ibb.co/3BrqmH4/Jump-2-sand-falls-quickly.gif)
I thought I'd address your very bad volleyball example here, head on. Then see if you concede that "yes, this was a very bad example".
I captured these 10 frames and put it into KRITA for analysis.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wS5ILuAV3w6HGQH0Nd6ja8uLQFsLrgRw/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wS5ILuAV3w6HGQH0Nd6ja8uLQFsLrgRw/view?usp=drive_link)
And here are the 1st 6 frames. Do you see anything wrong with your example here, to compare this against the "Navy Salute"??
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2019.0;attach=1224)
-
Complete rubbish. Your so-called grasp of basic physics is letting you down. Again
I'd like to hear your views on this most recent example that I've shown here.
I'm sure you would...
-
I'm sure you would...
How do you explain the sand falling from the boot-bottom down to the ground so much faster than the astronaut falls?
-
How do you explain the sand falling from the boot-bottom down to the ground so much faster than the astronaut falls?
This is trolling again. Your obfuscation analyses are just avoiding completely obvious things:-
1. Your inability to see it falling, grey regolith against a grey background means nothing and doesn't prove it falls faster.
2. I provided a gif of volleyball that showed the same thing. Your dopey suction-cup explanation doesn't cut it. Your cut frames again mean nothing, the sand definitely appears to disappear far too quickly. If you dispute this you are in denial.
3. You continue to avoid the really irrefutable: Time up = time down. We see a nice little parabola in perfect sync. An honest, competent physicist knows what that means.
4. Whilst the dust is difficult to see dispersing, there is clear evidence on the darkening ground of it moving forwards.
-
I thought I'd address your very bad volleyball example here, head on. Then see if you concede that "yes, this was a very bad example".
See if I "concede"? You can talk!
(https://i.ibb.co/4tfMqbn/Jump-1-sand-falls-quickly.gif)
So, he carries a dust wave to apex and it "disappears" immediately, well before he falls down. Are you going to concede this? It is rapid dispersal and hard to see against a similar background. And that's in very clear video!
-
How do you explain the sand falling from the boot-bottom down to the ground so much faster than the astronaut falls?
This is trolling again. Your obfuscation analyses are just avoiding completely obvious things:-
1. Your inability to see it falling, grey regolith against a grey background means nothing and doesn't prove it falls faster.
2. I provided a gif of volleyball that showed the same thing. Your dopey suction-cup explanation doesn't cut it. Your cut frames again mean nothing, the sand definitely appears to disappear far too quickly. If you dispute this you are in denial.
3. You continue to avoid the really irrefutable: Time up = time down. We see a nice little parabola in perfect sync. An honest, competent physicist knows what that means.
4. Whilst the dust is difficult to see dispersing, there is clear evidence on the darkening ground of it moving forwards.
Tere is no "vacuum pressure" the pressure is equal in all directions at a value of near zero. The astronaut steps/jump down onto the surface pressing this very angular regolith into the "valleys" in the boot profile. As soon as he steps/ jumps the regolith starts to fall until there is none left some falls early, some falls mid jump and some near the apex of the step/jump. But it doesn't fall faster as there is no atmosphere to resist falling as it does on Earth.
Someone said of you, you were an HB and attempt to snag onto something you perceive incorrectly as proof of a hoax. What you should do as any rational person, ask how could this be explained? Then go over ways that the magician did his trick.
There are too many instances where objects move as if in a lower G than earth, you don't see them but that is the nature of a HB.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/4tfMqbn/Jump-1-sand-falls-quickly.gif)
So, he carries a dust wave to apex and it "disappears" immediately, well before he falls down. Are you going to concede this? It is rapid dispersal and hard to see against a similar background. And that's in very clear video!
This is a better example than the other one, but is still not apples to apples.
1. He's jumping at a diagonal... which disperses more..
2. There is only a tiny amount of sand that rises to the level of his foot.
3. It's far away. My side show was VERY CLOSE. It's harder to see sand from so far away.
4. This sand is not beneath is foot, benefitting from the "low pressure" that reduces air resistance.
I have a volleyball shot that is:
1. Close
2. More straight up.
This one is very similar to my side-shot of the leaping astronaut.
https://youtu.be/XLjPKjppy_0?t=26 (https://youtu.be/XLjPKjppy_0?t=26)
So do you concede that your first Volleyball shot was impertinent?
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2019.0;attach=1220)
-
@Mag40 - gonna cut this off here, and take it back to Sand post instead.
The hell you are! You have this evaded post a show stopper for any objective person:
1. "dust at apex" - In an atmosphere, the boot leaves a temporal vacuum suction in it's wake (you are aware of this fact, yes).
It's mainly friction.
This temporary vacuum only lasts a very short time, but this suction effect pulls the dust upwards as the boot rises. As the boot reaches apex, it's upward velocity slows, and the vacuum effect instantly dissipates, leaving that dust to fall at earth gravity.
Nope - mainly friction. I specifically posted a gif of volleyball on the beach and the same sandy colour against a sandy background shows the same thing. Earth gravity has the dust disappearing instantly in the same irrelevant way. Just because it's harder to see doesn't mean a thing.
While the Cernan falls slower due to partial suspension. This is what would be EXPECTED to be seen on earth, per MLH theory.
That is just bollocks. The dust impacts simultaneously with his feet touching the ground on 3 successive jumps. Should I fetch where you said it was sliding along the ground?
The dust falling from apex too fast, is the damning evidence here. This is IMPOSSIBLE on the moon. The "Hippity" clip supports MLH, not PNA.
Grey on grey and a poor quality video. The only damning thing is your persistent obfuscation. What you can or cannot observe with the conditions present is totally irrelevant.
Once more your evasion on this matter is noted and starting to deliberately irritate now.
That's Cernan at apex with a clear dust wave.
The dust reaches apex at the same time as he does. Time up = time down. Which part of that confuses you?
2. "parabola" - why use this term? Parabola's are the same shape on moon and earth, with a 2.4X speed difference, that's all.
Because it is a parabola. Because it is visible. Because it reaches apex in a beautifully consistent synchronised motion with his jump.
I assume you are talking about the "faint dust" that appears on YOUR gif (but NOT the one from NASA's own site)
You are lying. The dust parabola is visible on every NASA version.
But let's assume YOUR source is accurate -- we see at 4-5 frames after liftoff, that there is a patch of dust that STARTED moving upwards at a FASTER rate.
And once again with the diversion avoiding the issue. My source is 100% accurate and if you suggest it has been doctored or any other HB lie along those lines, than people will start to see your true nature.
this of course may end up hitting apex at around the same time as John.
Rubbish, it is a blob on your crusty copy of the footage! Most of the dust travels forward. Once more you avoid points I have raised. If you think I am suddenly going to let you away with this, think again.
Additionally, in atmosphere, the lighter dust experiences more air resistance, which also slows it's falling a bit -- also giving you this effect.
And not visible on the volleyball clip! All diversion from the main point.
3. 4 ft high is not "ridiculous amount".
Of course it is! So is the distance involved.
Since we can't see the fall, we have less idea about suspensions.
Nonsense, we see no suspension at all on the leading section of the event.
This is a Half-parabola, giving us less physics to analyze.
Irrelevant in the extreme. We have enough to analyse it by height, projected distance and force.
BUT the full clip is explained by him simply kicking his leg twice as hard as you thought he did. This is a feasible and reasonable MLH theory.
There is nothing reasonable about this it all. I do not believe you think that. No honest physicist would look at that totally weird looking dust wave and conclude it looks Earth-like.
I'm still waiting for you to expand on your bare assertion about the time. I've done a manual check and his figures are spot on.
Keep trying.
Keep running away from the evidence. The game is up and you've been here less than a week. Your credibility is now in question since you are clearly evading the obvious on 3 separate matters. Smart people show they are smart by their actions not by bragging about it whilst showing they aren't.
John Young Jump
1. There is a nice parabolic arc of dust in perfect sync with his jump and the same height. Time up = Time down.
2. Disipation is irrelevant grey on grey on poor grainy video.
3. We clearly see shaded areas on the ground moving forwards away from Young.
Gene Cernan Bunny Hops
1. There is a nice parabolic arc of dust level with his boot. Time up = Time down.
2. Disipation is irrelevant grey on grey on poor grainy video.
3. We clearly see 3 impact areas on the ground for each of the last 3 jumps.
Dust Sideways kick
1. The height of this wave is just plain wrong for a little boot flick.
2. The distance requires >7m per second force with a sideways kick? That's ridiculous.
3. No dust suspension, no matter what you claim.
4. Adjusted for gravity without the unsubstantiated, unproven selective magic speed video, the astronauts look extremely unnatural.
Members should be made aware of your truly daft claim that the upward "draft" from a suction vacuum is responsible for lifting the dust off of the surface! Simple experiment, place bucket 1/4 inch from surface and yank it up - are you seriously claiming that the bucket pulls up a column of dirt/sand/dust?
You have nowhere to go now. Cernan and Young jumps both show dust level with boot at apex. Time up = time down. The dust is not on wires therefore......an honest physicist fills in the details.
Answer this without the HB two-step evasion.
-
This is a better example than the other one, but is still not apples to apples.
That's just bollocks.
1. He's jumping at a diagonal... which disperses more.
Bollocks and missing the whole point. The soil is gone before he even starts to come down. Your John Young observation is wrong and irrelevant anyway. You keep avoiding the game-over bit. The nice little parabola that follows him up does so in perfect sync. Your rather daft diversion about magic suction-cups is all you've come up with.
2. There is only a tiny amount of sand that rises to the level of his foot.
Irrelevant nit-picking. The footage shows rapid sand dispersal (on the beach) and difficult to see sand against sand.
3. It's far away. My side show was VERY CLOSE. It's harder to see sand from so far away.
Have you not got the balls to concede this simple point?
4. This sand is not beneath is foot, benefitting from the "low pressure" that reduces air resistance.
What the hell has that got to do with the point being made? You are just flannelling and squirming.
The sand rises to the volleyball player's foot height and disperses (to the eye) much faster than his fall. If you dispute this, you are just plain lying. This is on a really clear piece of video, compared to a grainy one for Apollo.
So do you concede that your first Volleyball shot was impertinent?
I gave you an example that showed the point perfectly and you want me to concede something else, when you haven't got the basic integrity to concede the obvious?
-
You have addresses my questions in post 72, why are you ignoring me? It is you think that you are way smarter than I and you are lowering your perceived skills to speak to me?
-
#1: Tere is no "vacuum pressure" the pressure is equal in all directions at a value of near zero. The astronaut steps/jump down onto the surface pressing this very angular regolith into the "valleys" in the boot profile. As soon as he steps/ jumps the regolith starts to fall until there is none left some falls early, some falls mid jump and some near the apex of the step/jump.
But it doesn't fall faster as there is no atmosphere to resist falling as it does on Earth.
#2: There are too many instances where objects move as if in a lower G than earth, you don't see them but that is the nature of a HB.
#1: You are suggesting "adhesion" as the primary force to cause dust to rise with the boot. I actually agree that this *may* have been the most significant factor. For this issue, the "why did it rise" is a secondary issue -- we SEE IT rising to foot level, then falls to the ground way faster.
#2: Most of the footage is "NASA doing it Right" - it's the mess-ups that Break Physics is what's telling. If you are watching a magic show, believing "this is ALL Real", but then see the "hidden mechanism" just ONCE -- now you know the whole show was just "an illusion". You don't continue to watch the show, with the continued belief that ALL of this is REAL now (just because in the rest of the show, you can no longer physically see the hidden mechanisms.
In Apollo Footage - most of it runs "according to plan" (they slow FPS to 40% simulates Lunar gravity perfectly)... but on occasion they mess-up -- and in the case of dust beneath an astronaut with wires lifting up -- the dust gravity tells us the truth.
But this is a "who cares", mostly. We see the dust rising as high as the bottom of the boot, but then falls WAY FASTER than the boot.
I'm talking of the 2nd example -- the leap from the side - where we are super close, not far away.
-
I gave you an example that showed the point perfectly and you want me to concede something else, when you haven't got the basic integrity to concede the obvious?
The debate between you and I has gone full-circle. You keep ignoring the caveats that I am stating, as you restate your original claim that fully discounts something that is very real.
For example, you mention the "scant sign of dust between John's feet" as your proof, while ignoring one CRUCIAL caveat -- we SEE dust from the onset rising FASTER than the boot!... So even for an Earth Studio, where John is being hoisted to slow his trajectory -- you are comparing it to dust that we SEE rising FASTER than the boot -- and so you are comparing Apples to Oranges.
I'm not sensing that you have the mental skills to see the gross error in your logic.
I hear your points -- I've addressed your points. You ignore my very real counter points - -and continue to say your same claim, unmodified...
So we're at full-circle here. I may document some of your concerns in the KB doc, to demonstrate how they are invalid objections, and you can read it there -- Perhaps I'll keep updating those sections until my refutation of your objection is crystal clear.
-
#1: You are suggesting "adhesion" as the primary force to cause dust to rise with the boot. I actually agree that this *may* have been the most significant factor. For this issue, the "why did it rise" is a secondary issue -- we SEE IT rising to foot level, then falls to the ground way faster.
You express a level of irritation at your "caveats" being ignored when they haven't. Then repeat a lie.
Friction is the primary cause, aided by electrostatic attraction. It doesn't fall to the ground faster - that is really deceptive of you. I have proven that it is often difficult to see the dust/sand falling (sand against sand or grey against grey) so your observation is irrelevant. I have pointed out at least 3 times now that there is shaded area that tracks forwards in front of Young corresponding to dust dispersal.
(https://i.ibb.co/qrjRGpk/Jump.gif)
#2: Most of the footage is "NASA doing it Right"
Obfuscation. All of it is right.
it's the mess-ups that Break Physics is what's telling.
You are the one making the "mess-ups".
If you are watching a magic show, believing "this is ALL Real", but then see the "hidden mechanism" just ONCE -- now you know the whole show was just "an illusion". You don't continue to watch the show, with the continued belief that ALL of this is REAL now (just because in the rest of the show, you can no longer physically see the hidden mechanisms.
The problem with that analogy is that you aren't watching a magic show and your poor observations have swayed your judgement.
In Apollo Footage - most of it runs "according to plan" (they slow FPS to 40% simulates Lunar gravity perfectly)... but on occasion they mess-up -- and in the case of dust beneath an astronaut with wires lifting up -- the dust gravity tells us the truth.
And there's the lies again. I do not believe you are honest enough to admit a single significant thing.
But this is a "who cares", mostly. We see the dust rising as high as the bottom of the boot, but then falls WAY FASTER than the boot.
Repeating the same lie again. Once you've got the first part of that, physics is done and an honest physicist would know this. Time up = time down. Quite clearly circumstances don't favour seeing dust dispersal. The footage is grainy and it's essentially all grey. Your inability to see the second part of the process doesn't mean a thing. You are clinging to it with the only cost your integrity.
You have admitted that the nice little parabola goes up with his boot. That is an irrefutable aspect of physics. It means for him to do the rising part it has to be at terrestrial freefall speed that is x245% - this is the real reason why you are diverting and obfuscating. Nobody needs to see the second part, the first part does the trick. That tiny little segment of footage proves he is in lower gravity.
-
The debate between you and I has gone full-circle.
That is bollocks. You are wriggling and squirming to avoid admitting the irrefutable.
You keep ignoring the caveats that I am stating, as you restate your original claim that fully discounts something that is very real.
Your "caveats" are irrelevant diversion.
For example, you mention the "scant sign of dust between John's feet" as your proof
You can minimise it all you like as your desperation increases, but it isn't "scant" and is a clear parabolic arc that perfectly matches his jump time and height.
while ignoring one CRUCIAL caveat -- we SEE dust from the onset rising FASTER than the boot!
Pardon my French but that is bullshit. We see a clump going forwards. Even if it were going faster (which its final height disproves), its subsequent dispersal occurs on the opposite side of Young and is not possible to see. Luckily we don't need that. Any honest physics student (and you clearly are no expert) has more than enough data. The beautiful little dust parabola between his boots in perfect sync.
The only crucial thing is your refusal to address the obvious.
... So even for an Earth Studio, where John is being hoisted to slow his trajectory -- you are comparing it to dust that we SEE rising FASTER than the boot -- and so you are comparing Apples to Oranges.
You are inventing fruit and ignoring irrefutable physics.
I'm not sensing that you have the mental skills to see the gross error in your logic.
I'm sensing you are playing "TBFDU defence" and resorting to pathetic jibes. Your judgement concerning my "mental skills" is obfuscation. It is clear that you are unable to admit this because the tiny clip closes the whole case. You're just another in a long line of HBs who lack critical thinking skills and basic logic.
I hear your points
And confirmed the one that proves the conclusion.
I've addressed your points.
A lie. You've still to address the only one that matters, all your diversion is what every HB does.You've ignored that the falling regolith is largely obscured by dissipation grey on grey and you have ignored the shaded areas on the ground showing it mainly goes forwards. On the right, there is very slight, but clear surface discolouration as he lands.
You ignore my very real counter points - -and continue to say your same claim, unmodified.
I just addressed again your only counter point - your claim of soil going faster - yet it fails to attain any real height. A blob, isolated by you on probably the crustiest copy available where he is nowhere near apex. How very deceptive.
One of your other "caveats" was some comedy-physics about suction cups. I'm glad you've dropped that particular howler.
So we're at full-circle here.
No we are not, the forum awaits your attention to the only point that matters:
(https://i.ibb.co/qrjRGpk/Jump.gif)
A nice little 1.62m s^2 parabola. Perfect sync. Irrefutable.
You also seem to be doing everything in your power to avoid the other points also:
Gene Cernan Bunny Hops
1. There is a nice parabolic arc of dust level with his boot. Time up = Time down.
2. Disipation is irrelevant grey on grey on poor grainy video.
3. We clearly see 3 impact areas on the ground for each of the last 3 jumps.
(https://i.ibb.co/vkXZd4X/Apex.png)
Dust Sideways kick
1. The height of this wave is just plain wrong for a little boot flick.
2. The distance requires >7m per second force with a sideways kick? That's ridiculous.
3. No dust suspension, no matter what you claim.
4. Adjusted for gravity without the unsubstantiated, unproven selective magic speed video, the astronauts look extremely unnatural.
-
You have admitted that the nice little parabola goes up with his boot. That is an irrefutable aspect of physics. It means for him to do the rising part it has to be at terrestrial freefall speed that is x245% - this is the real reason why you are diverting and obfuscating. Nobody needs to see the second part, the first part does the trick. That tiny little segment of footage proves he is in lower gravity.
For your whole claim here, I'd like to know who on this site agrees with your logic. Or if any physicists agree with your logic.
"Time up = Time down", only applies in a vacuum, and where there isn't a force helping it go up as it goes (e.g. "adhesion" + "low pressure"). The fact that we see the dust fall FASTER, means "this physics principal is broken!" -- On the moon is SHOULD BE LIKE THIS.. but our footage shows that it's not. Thus your own principle is violated/broken.
I believe the best answer for what causes the dust to rise so high is from @bknight, which is more like "adhesion" effect... the dust is packed tight (pushing the air pockets out), and has to come loose from the boot as he jumps... So if the dust is carried along in part by "adhesion", this explains the "Full rise"...... but when the dust then falls so much faster, this indicates 2 gravities.... Fakery.
-
For your whole claim here, I'd like to know who on this site agrees with your logic. Or if any physicists agree with your logic.
No logic it is gravitational motion.
"Time up = Time down", only applies in a vacuum
To millimetric accuracy but it still does it on Earth over short times.
and where there isn't a force helping it go up as it goes (e.g. "adhesion" + "low pressure").
Repeating your junk about the pressure that a five-year old can disprove by pulling their hand up from 5mm above the sand very quickly! And adhesion is a attractive force that merely holds some of the wave together. If you seriously think it is some propelling force then you ain't no physicist.
The fact that we see the dust fall FASTER
No fact, just you lying again. You've had it pointed out to you, ignoring that and repeating becomes a lie. The sand shown on the beach "falls faster" and on a clearly high resolution video. The issue that an honest person would see is how the regolith is grey against a grey background, it's mostly kicked forward and dissipating, video quality is very grainy and there is clear evidence of a shadow moving forward followed by the ground on the right (faintly) but noticeably darkening as he lands.
means "this physics principal is broken!" -- On the moon is SHOULD BE LIKE THIS.. but our footage shows that it's not. Thus your own principle is violated/broken.
Chronic circular reasoning based on you repeating your lie and ignoring the lovely parabola rising all on its own - effectively IN FREE FLIGHT.
I believe the best answer for what causes the dust to rise so high is from @bknight, which is more like "adhesion" effect... the dust is packed tight (pushing the air pockets out), and has to come loose from the boot as he jumps...
This tells me a number of things. You don't know what friction is. You don't know what free flight is. It doesn't matter a jott what force enabled the parabola to reach apex in perfect harmony! It could have been fired by a cannon for all I care. You don't understand gravitational motion.
So if the dust is carried along in part by "adhesion", this explains the "Full rise"
Chronic circular reasoning again.
but when the dust then falls so much faster, this indicates 2 gravities.... Fakery.
Repeating the lie. Repeating the same response:
The issue that an honest person would see is how the regolith is grey against a grey background, it's mostly kicked forward and dissipating, video quality is very grainy and there is clear evidence of a shadow moving forward followed by the ground on the right (faintly) but noticeably darkening as he lands.
Why are you not responding to the other 2 issues?
-
Why are you not responding to the other 2 issues?
Like I said, you and I have come to our end of debate here. If we wanted to take this to the next level, we'd need an fairly unbiased audience of preferably Physicists to present our cases too - and see how it turns out.
Maybe they could help iron out the various forces at work that cause sand to rise as high as the volleyball player.
I have a Volleyball player jump that is closer to moon examples -- and you see the dust ALL THE WAY down.
Your far away sideways jumping players that start with less dust -- are simply less pertinent to the moon examples. Mine is much more apples to apples, and demonstrates the my point with clarity.
Why does the sand rise? I still think it's mostly an "Adhesion factor" but also facilitated by "low air pressure" (as WAFTING REALLY DOES MOVE AIR... so the moving air, reduces air resistance in the wake of the boot).
I'm sure you disagree.... that's fine. I care what the physicists would say... too bad we don't seem to have any here. Do you know of any you can summon?
-
Like I said, you and I have come to our end of debate here. If we wanted to take this to the next level, we'd need an fairly unbiased audience of preferably Physicists to present our cases too - and see how it turns out.
Yeah you run away when the evidence doesn't fit your daft theory.
Maybe they could help iron out the various forces at work that cause sand to rise as high as the volleyball player.
How about we ask AI?
Friction plays a crucial role in the sand rising alongside a person jumping on the beach. Here's how:
Downward Force and Compression: When a person jumps, their weight exerts a downward force on the sand. This force compresses the sand beneath their feet, displacing it downwards.
Friction Between Sand Particles: As the sand is compressed, friction between the individual sand particles resists this displacement. This resistance causes some of the sand particles to be pushed upwards and outwards, creating a small cloud around the person's feet.
Rebound and Upward Force: The compression and subsequent release of pressure due to the jump create a rebound effect. This upward force, combined with the frictional resistance, propels the sand particles upwards.
Air Resistance: As the sand particles rise, they encounter air resistance. This resistance slows down the upward motion of the particles, causing them to eventually fall back to the ground.
Therefore, friction plays a crucial role in both the initial displacement of the sand and its subsequent upward motion. It's the interplay between the downward force, the frictional resistance between sand particles, the rebound effect, and air resistance that results in the sand rising alongside the person's jump.
I have a Volleyball player jump that is closer to moon examples -- and you see the dust ALL THE WAY down.
So what. I have a volleyball player where you don't. Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't. You're still lying when you say it goes too fast.
Your far away sideways jumping players that start with less dust -- are simply less pertinent to the moon examples. Mine is much more apples to apples, and demonstrates the my point with clarity.
Anyone can see how the regolith is grey against a grey background, it's mostly kicked forward and dissipating, the video quality is very grainy and there is clear evidence of a shadow moving forward followed by the ground on the right (faintly) but noticeably darkening as he lands.
Why does the sand rise? I still think it's mostly an "Adhesion factor" but also facilitated by "low air pressure" (as WAFTING REALLY DOES MOVE AIR... so the moving air, reduces air resistance in the wake of the boot).
You are clearly not a physics expert. The force is friction.
-
You are clearly not a physics expert. The force is friction.
Don't use AI as your proof. AI can give you some hints, but often those hints are entirely wrong. Depending upon how I ask the question, I can end up with the same Google AI giving me OPPOSITE answers - contradicting itself.
I googled "can you trust Google AI answers?", and Google told me THIS about itself:
"No, you should not completely trust Google AI answers as they can sometimes be inaccurate, misleading, or even dangerous"
So when you are trying to make physics proofs, get a real source.
You keep claiming that "airborne dust is hard to see" -- that's just not the case. If it disperses a LOT, then yes. This is why the one example I have, close up, with LOTS of DUST, going nearly straight up BENEATH the boot the whole way -- is a good example. Just as with the similarly framed Volley ball player -- the sand for him ALSO did not disperse, and remained VERY VISIBLE all the way down.
We're done with this, because we're just going in circles.
Perhaps I'll throw you this bone -- there's a thing called "static friction" which is likely a component of the "Adhesion" factor that I think explains a good deal of the dust rising beneath a boot.... so sure -- "static friction provides some part of the adhesion effect". See now we agree, and can end this debate.
But not, this "Static friction" (if it's happening) acts on the dust AFTER IT LEAVES THE GROUND... so as it's rising, still "stuck together" (i.e. adhesion effect, caused in part by static friction) -- this static friction force is still applying a lifting force AS IT RISES with the boot.
In the "fake scenario" that I believe in -- the dust WANTS TO FALL SOONER -- but this adhesion / static-friction effect is keeping it moving with the boot.
At the Apex, once the dust fully breaks free from this adhesion -- now it falls under earth gravity... while the astronaut descends more slowly because he's partly suspended by a wire.
-
Don't use AI as your proof. AI can give you some hints, but often those hints are entirely wrong. Depending upon how I ask the question, I can end up with the same Google AI giving me OPPOSITE answers - contradicting itself.
You can lead a horse to water. I didn't use AI as my proof! I already know the answer, it was an increasingly vain attempt to reach somebody who is rude and patronising, keeps telling everyone how "smart" they are but fails to convincce.
You keep claiming that "airborne dust is hard to see" -- that's just not the case.
A lie! I keep claiming that circumstances were not favourable to do so. That you have repeatedly not addressed.
If it disperses a LOT, then yes. This is why the one example I have, close up, with LOTS of DUST, going nearly straight up BENEATH the boot the whole way -- is a good example. Just as with the similarly framed Volley ball player -- the sand for him ALSO did not disperse, and remained VERY VISIBLE all the way down.
Such a poor method of debate. You are wasting my time now. I demonstrated with a clear example how sand against sand can cause the same thing and you played stupid games trying to hand wave it away.
We're done with this, because we're just going in circles.
Your pathetic refusal to admit the obvious and address all points is the issue here.
Perhaps I'll throw you this bone
You don't know what you are doing.
-- there's a thing called "static friction" which is likely a component of the "Adhesion" factor that I think explains a good deal of the dust rising beneath a boot.... so sure -- "static friction provides some part of the adhesion effect". See now we agree, and can end this debate.
"which is likely" / "that I think".
But not, this "Static friction" (if it's happening) acts on the dust AFTER IT LEAVES THE GROUND... so as it's rising, still "stuck together" (i.e. adhesion effect, caused in part by static friction) -- this static friction force is still applying a lifting force AS IT RISES with the boot.
I know now for a fact that you are flannelling and do not understand Newtonian Physics. On both jumps that you are running away from, there is a visible dust wave - in independent flight! - that is all that is necessary.
In the "fake scenario" that I believe in -- the dust WANTS TO FALL SOONER -- but this adhesion / static-friction effect is keeping it moving with the boot.
I'm seeing enough from you that confirms you are out of your depth.
At the Apex, once the dust fully breaks free from this adhesion -- now it falls under earth gravity... while the astronaut descends more slowly because he's partly suspended by a wire.
A claim that ignores every single point raised.
John Young - a clear parabolic arc in independent flight that matches his jump perfectly.
Regolith is grey against grey, dispersing and moving forward. Makes it difficult to see.
Video is very grainy and not ideal for viewing. Makes it difficult to see.
On the surface we see (on the left) a shadow moving away from him and shaded areas on the surface very faintly on the right.
Gene Cernan - a clear wave of dust matching his jump height, again in independent flight.
On 3 successive jumps as he lands, we see clearly the dust wave impacting the surface.
On the last jump it is clearly the dust striking the surface.
On The dust wave being flicked it is an absurd distance and force for Earth and the height on its own is crazy.
Your replies were bare-assertion with nothing but denial and a deceptive claim that "it looks normal".
You also alluded to an unsubstantiated bare assertion about variable video speed.
-
I googled "can you trust Google AI answers?", and Google told me THIS about itself:
"No, you should not completely trust Google AI answers as they can sometimes be inaccurate, misleading, or even dangerous"
As opposed to answers from conspiracy theorists which are always inaccurate, misleading, or even dangerous.
How about you show us why that specific answer is wrong instead of just dismissing it?
-
How about you show us why that specific answer is wrong instead of just dismissing it?
It's Mag40's theory - and he proof was a Google AI response, known to be very flawed, especially for niche science. If there are actual articles/studies presented online about this - I'd like to see them. I myself couldn't find any, otherwise I'd be sourcing them myself. I'd love to see some legit studies of this phenomenon... I just haven't found any yet.
For me, I see the dust rise with the boot, but then falls way faster. This is a close up with lots of dust and no sidewards motion, nor air/wind to disperse.. So there should be less dispersion on the moon... and in this case we see either "Full immediate dispersion to invisible" or "the dust falls way faster than the astronaut" indicating the fakery (i.e. Astronaut on earth suspended by a cable).
So "why it rises" is currently "unexplained" in this debate. Mag40 wants us to "take his word for it"... or "Google AI".
-
I'm seeing enough from you that confirms you are out of your depth.
In the past, I have spent many months in debate with Fundamentalist Christians over their core belief that "everyone who doesn't believe as I do about Jesus, is going to Hell, because Jesus is the only way" - about the authenticity/history/nuances/corruptions/authority of their Bible. And their posture was much like yours now. I had a great many lower IQ people telling me how stupid I was.
Why? Because in their mind, the Bible was 100% God's word, and anyone who said otherwise was either Evil or Stupid. Cognitive Dissonance is painful for most. And Confirmation Bias runs strong in us all - including me. This is why I MUCH prefer to hang out here with opposition, to put my own confirmation bias under fire, and prevent me from believing unsupported or exaggerated beliefs.
My goal is to present 100% integrity here. As I go, I am increasing my own understanding of a great many things - because Iron Sharpens Iron, and Airplanes get their lift from resistance.
-
I'm seeing enough from you that confirms you are out of your depth.
In the past, I have spent many months in debate with Fundamentalist Christians over their core belief that "everyone who doesn't believe as I do about Jesus, is going to Hell, because Jesus is the only way" - about the authenticity/history/nuances/corruptions/authority of their Bible. And their posture was much like yours now. I had a great many lower IQ people telling me how stupid I was.
Why? Because in their mind, the Bible was 100% God's word, and anyone who said otherwise was either Evil or Stupid. Cognitive Dissonance is painful for most. And Confirmation Bias runs strong in us all - including me. This is why I MUCH prefer to hang out here with opposition, to put my own confirmation bias under fire, and prevent me from believing unsupported or exaggerated beliefs.
My goal is to present 100% integrity here. As I go, I am increasing my own understanding of a great many things - because Iron Sharpens Iron, and Airplanes get their lift from resistance.
Irreverent and off topic.
-
In the past, I have spent many months in debate with Fundamentalist Christians over their core belief that "everyone who doesn't believe as I do about Jesus, is going to Hell, because Jesus is the only way" - about the authenticity/history/nuances/corruptions/authority of their Bible. And their posture was much like yours now.
Yeah, that is just so interesting.
I had a great many lower IQ people telling me how stupid I was.
Nobody is telling you that and your suggesting that people around here are similar is just more of your rudeness. Your posts do "all the talking". Instead of addressing numerous points that debunk your thread claim and your erroneous core-belief, you chose one that suggests your failure to address any of them shows you are out of your depth. Ironically aptly demonstrating my point completely.
This is why I MUCH prefer to hang out here with opposition, to put my own confirmation bias under fire, and prevent me from believing unsupported or exaggerated beliefs.
Yet, here you are persisting in it. You arrived proclaiming how smart you are, but in less than a week we see that your beliefs are dictating your words entirely. Every clear observation results in you cobbling together anything you can to obfuscate it or divert.
My goal is to present 100% integrity here.
Well you failed completely.
As I go, I am increasing my own understanding of a great many things - because Iron Sharpens Iron, and Airplanes get their lift from resistance.
This forum awaits a proper display of integrity. Sand goes up with the jumper for reasons given to you. Any competent physicist would understand that. You can't even agree on fundamentals of friction. Your whole modus-operandi is to immediately think of a way to dismiss, but that same mode never once attempts it on your own debunked claims.
Now, would you be so kind as to stop pissing everyone about and show this so called integrity.
Answer my post properly. Free flight visible parabola/dust wave. Time up=time down. Lower gravity. Wave of regolith that is crazily too high for a little sideways boot flick on Earth.
-
Answer my post properly. Free flight visible parabola/dust wave. Time up=time down. Lower gravity. Wave of regolith that is crazily too high for a little sideways boot flick on Earth.
I've answered this multiple times.
"Time up = Time down" is NOT TRUE if there is a force "along the way" helping it to rise... Your over simplified principle assumes there are "no upward forces acting on the dust after the boot leaves the ground".
We SEE IT RISE WITH THE BOOT -- but THEN FALLS WAY FASTER.
You think it "fully dissipates to becoming near 100% invisible close to the camera" - I disagree.
So we're going in circles. I would LOVE to bring in a real physicist here to weigh in. Without that - we're at an impasse. This topic has wound down to a close, unless someone new and smarter chimes in.
-
Irreverent and off topic.
On topic, because I'm seeing a behavioral parallel/pattern between Fundamentalist Christians (the hard core ones) and Apollogists.
We have modern day PROOF that BILLIONS believe Hoaxes that have lasted for HUNDREDS of YEARS.
Is it a FACT that:
1. Either the Christians believe a HOAX, OR (2.5 Billion and falling)
2. The Muslims believe a HOAX, OR (1.6 Billion and growing)
3. BOTH. (4 billion -- 50% of all humans)
Likewise, with the USA 2020 election -- here again, the same concept applies. At least ONE HALF of Americans believe a HOAX - because both beliefs are contradictory.
Apollo behaves much like a religion. Many people hold to it, using logic that is very similar to how religious people hold to their beliefs/Books.
-
In the past, I have spent many months in debate with Fundamentalist Christians over their core belief that "everyone who doesn't believe as I do about Jesus, is going to Hell, because Jesus is the only way" - about the authenticity/history/nuances/corruptions/authority of their Bible. And their posture was much like yours now. I had a great many lower IQ people telling me how stupid I was.
Why? Because in their mind, the Bible was 100% God's word, and anyone who said otherwise was either Evil or Stupid. Cognitive Dissonance is painful for most. And Confirmation Bias runs strong in us all - including me. This is why I MUCH prefer to hang out here with opposition, to put my own confirmation bias under fire, and prevent me from believing unsupported or exaggerated beliefs.
My goal is to present 100% integrity here. As I go, I am increasing my own understanding of a great many things - because Iron Sharpens Iron, and Airplanes get their lift from resistance.
There is a big difference between faith and facts.
-
Irreverent and off topic.
On topic, because I'm seeing a behavioral parallel/pattern between Fundamentalist Christians (the hard core ones) and Apollogists.
We have modern day PROOF that BILLIONS believe Hoaxes that have lasted for HUNDREDS of YEARS.
Is it a FACT that:
1. Either the Christians believe a HOAX, OR (2.5 Billion and falling)
2. The Muslims believe a HOAX, OR (1.6 Billion and growing)
3. BOTH. (4 billion -- 50% of all humans)
Likewise, with the USA 2020 election -- here again, the same concept applies. At least ONE HALF of Americans believe a HOAX - because both beliefs are contradictory.
Apollo behaves much like a religion. Many people hold to it, using logic that is very similar to how religious people hold to their beliefs/Books.
The topic is allegedly sand falling faster than it should on the Moon. So what you posted is off topic and irrelevant to the general public.
-
If this was BAUT you would be compelled to start answering posts properly! You keep ignoring things that don't fit, things that all on their little own prove they are in low gravity and vacuum.
The consistent way dust behaves in countless sections of EVAs is devastating proof. The non-Earth distances it moves, the non-suspension of particles, the speed of the dust, only affected by gravity in its duration of flight. Sped up, things like Schmitt falling over where he splatters dust everywhere, look insanely wrong.
This forum isn't yours to determine "we are going round in circles"! You are cowardly avoiding things and I simply won't let you do that.
Friction is the primary cause, aided by electrostatic attraction. It doesn't fall to the ground faster - that is really deceptive of you. I have proven that it is often difficult to see the dust/sand falling (sand against sand or grey against grey) so your observation is irrelevant. I have pointed out at least 3 times now that there is shaded area that tracks forwards in front of Young corresponding to dust dispersal.
(https://i.ibb.co/qrjRGpk/Jump.gif)
Repeating the same lie again. Once you've got the first part of that, physics is done and an honest physicist would know this. Time up = time down. Quite clearly circumstances don't favour seeing dust dispersal. The footage is grainy and it's essentially all grey. Your inability to see the second part of the process doesn't mean a thing. You are clinging to it with the only cost your integrity.
You have admitted that the nice little parabola goes up with his boot. That is an irrefutable aspect of physics. It means for him to do the rising part it has to be at terrestrial freefall speed that is x245% - this is the real reason why you are diverting and obfuscating. Nobody needs to see the second part, the first part does the trick. That tiny little segment of footage proves he is in lower gravity.
You also seem to be doing everything in your power to avoid the other points also:
Gene Cernan Bunny Hops
1. There is a nice parabolic arc of dust level with his boot. Time up = Time down.
2. Disipation is irrelevant grey on grey on poor grainy video.
3. We clearly see 3 impact areas on the ground for each of the last 3 jumps.
(https://i.ibb.co/vkXZd4X/Apex.png)
Dust Sideways kick
1. The height of this wave is just plain wrong for a little boot flick.
2. The distance requires >7m per second force with a sideways kick? That's ridiculous.
3. No dust suspension, no matter what you claim.
4. Adjusted for gravity without the unsubstantiated, unproven selective magic speed video, the astronauts look extremely unnatural.
-
How about you show us why that specific answer is wrong instead of just dismissing it?
It's Mag40's theory - and he proof was a Google AI response, known to be very flawed, especially for niche science.
You're saying it is wrong, so prove it.
-
There is a big difference between faith and facts.
But there is also a LOT of similarity between Apollo and other religions. BOTH are based on a whole bunch of Facts. But even religions based upon 95% facts, can be entirely false, especially when you introduce the concept of "my beliefs are the only true ones; all others are doomed to Hell". This 5% makes it false.
95% of Apollo could have been real. But the 5% that wasn't -- the part where when it came time to Land, they "faked it" for those 9 days -- this puts a turd into the whole mix. Spoils the grand finale.
MLH theory is that the determination to take "Plan B - Fake it" became solid in 1967 following Apollo 1, killing the crew while doing a simple sound test (that was failing). After offing my hero, Thomas Baron, NASA proceeded at a rate 50% faster than earlier by skipping steps, compressing schedule to meet the 1969 date -- even Alan Bean proclaimed at the time "That's Crazy! You can't do that!" - -but that was before he got the memo.
Gus Grissom's last words: "Jesus Christ, if we can't even communicate between 2 or 3 buildings, how are we ever going to get to the moon??" - 10 seconds later, the fire.
2.5 years later -- On the moon. 6x in a row. No issues. And a GREAT MANY mess-ups that have been noticed.... things unexplainable "if it were real".
-
The topic is allegedly sand falling faster than it should on the Moon. So what you posted is off topic and irrelevant to the general public.
The "manner in which people develop and maintain their worldviews" is fully on topic for every point I make. It's a "Meta point" that covers all.
So occasionally, it needs to be brought up. So many Apollogists seem to think that "a Hoax of this magnitude couldn't hold together" - "how did they fool so many?"
Answer: As a group/society, we're pretty easy to fool, especially when the thing being sold to us, really appeals to us.
This is why so many Apollogists will dig in their heels to defend Apollo to the end. It's hard to change deeply held worldviews -- and if the Landings were Faked, it opens up a "can of worms" for many people... which they cannot accept. And so they end up defending Apollo in manners that are very similar to how Religious folks defend their views on God/Heaven/Salvation.
-
You have admitted that the nice little parabola goes up with his boot. That is an irrefutable aspect of physics. It means for him to do the rising part it has to be at terrestrial freefall speed that is x245% - this is the real
I've not admitted "perfect parabola", but only that the "dust rises to the height of the boot's bottom"..
My claim is that forces acted on this dust along the path -- such as an "adhesion effect" where it remained "stuck together" and also "stuck in the boot tread initially".. And the wake of a wide boot does provide a low-pressure zone that causes the air to move with it -- thus also eliminates some air resistance.
And then these forces stopped, and what did the sand do next??
Answer: It Fell WAY FASTER than the astronaut's center of mass. Thus, a sign of fakery.
and you say: Even though it was close, moving upwards, and with no air to dissipate it - it dissiapated to invisible -- you thought it was traveling in a parabola -- but now invisible.
So we disagree. I'd be glad to get a Physicist in here to weigh in. Without that -- WE ARE DONE with this point. Time to move on. This horse is long-dead.
-
You're saying it is wrong, so prove it.
I'm also saying "it's secondary". If Mag40 is too lazy to find a good source for his claim - then it's a non-point. Unsubstantiated. Nothing to disprove here.
-
2.5 years later -- On the moon. 6x in a row. No issues. And a GREAT MANY mess-ups that have been noticed.... things unexplainable "if it were real".
This is factually false. They didn't land on the moon 6 times in a row. They landed twice in a row and then four times in a row. Your claim of no issues is also false, as every single mission had substantial problems that needed to be resolved or they would have been forced to abort.
You should already be aware of both of these facts. That you aren't is more evidence that you lack the courtesy to do the appropriate research to properly present your claim.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/qrjRGpk/Jump.gif)
I've not admitted "perfect parabola", but only that the "dust rises to the height of the boot's bottom"..
Right then, we're done. Time up = time down.
My claim is that forces acted on this dust along the path -- such as an "adhesion effect" where it remained "stuck together" and also "stuck in the boot tread initially".. And the wake of a wide boot does provide a low-pressure zone that causes the air to move with it -- thus also eliminates some air resistance.
A whole lot of irrelevant bollocks. The nice little (didn't say perfect!) parabola is in independent flight. All physicists see this. If you don't, you aren't one. Besides, what physicist can't understand why it happens!
And then these forces stopped, and what did the sand do next??
The magic suction cup, the hyper-inflated pressure variation, the "effect of adhesion" which is certainly not a propelling force! It is an attractive force between molecules. In a rising clump of dust, it attracts molecules to those above and it attracts those above to those below.
Absolutely no way does any competent physicist suggest adhesion is a propelling force.
Answer: It Fell WAY FASTER than the astronaut's center of mass. Thus, a sign of fakery.
Is this what it boils down to? You are now acting like a troll. Ignoring virtually everything being addressed and repeating the lie.
and you say:
A great big lie - I haven't said that.
Even though it was close, moving upwards, and with no air to dissipate it - it dissiapated to invisible
Air doesn't dissipate it, kinetic energy in a chaotic process does that
you thought it was traveling in a parabola
It's proven and admitted. The parabola, independent flight rises to boot height in perfect synch. That tiny little parabola has got you by the gonads and as an HB you are scared to admit it.
So we disagree.
Your disagreement on the irrefutable means nothing.
I'd be glad to get a Physicist in here to weigh in. Without that -- WE ARE DONE with this point. Time to move on. This horse is long-dead.
Oh we are NOT done on this at all. You keep playing the HB coward. Besides you claimed to BE a physics expert - with your rude jibes.
All by itself, the little parabola in perfect sync - irrefutably - rises to level with Young's boots. Time up = time down. Your deceptive thread label about it falling too fast - disproven.
1. I provided you with 2 examples of this occurring on the beach - it has simply dispersed and hard to see against a same colour background.
2. You continue to ignore that there is a clear shadow moving away from Young in front of him.
3. You continue to ignore the slight but clear ground discolouration.
Then all this:
You also seem to be doing everything in your power to avoid the other points also:
Gene Cernan Bunny Hops
1. There is a nice parabolic arc of dust level with his boot. Time up = Time down.
2. Disipation is irrelevant grey on grey on poor grainy video.
3. We clearly see 3 impact areas on the ground for each of the last 3 jumps.
(https://i.ibb.co/vkXZd4X/Apex.png)
Dust Sideways kick
1. The height of this wave is just plain wrong for a little boot flick.
2. The distance requires >7m per second force with a sideways kick? That's ridiculous.
3. No dust suspension, no matter what you claim.
4. Adjusted for gravity without the unsubstantiated, unproven selective magic speed video, the astronauts look extremely unnatural.
-
There is a big difference between faith and facts.
But there is also a LOT of similarity between Apollo and other religions.
Discussions involving religion are irrelevant to the topic and serve no purpose other than to help you distract and evade.
I'm getting tired of your dismissive attitude towards the other members of the forum. Stick to things that are verifiable, answer the questions that are directed toward you, stop ignoring/dismissing the answers given to you, and stay on topic.
2.5 years later -- On the moon. 6x in a row. No issues.
No issues? That shows your ignorance.
-
You're saying it is wrong, so prove it.
I'm also saying "it's secondary". If Mag40 is too lazy to find a good source for his claim - then it's a non-point. Unsubstantiated. Nothing to disprove here.
I am telling you right now, that your continued membership in this forum DEPENDS on you disproving the response given to you by Mag40, regardless of whether you trust the source of the information, or admitting that you can't.
-
2.5 years later -- On the moon. 6x in a row. No issues. And a GREAT MANY mess-ups that have been noticed.... things unexplainable "if it were real".
This is factually false. They didn't land on the moon 6 times in a row. They landed twice in a row and then four times in a row. Your claim of no issues is also false, as every single mission had substantial problems that needed to be resolved or they would have been forced to abort.
Clarification- "no fatal issues", in an environment where most failures would normally be fatal. I should have said "fatal" - your assumption that I don't know about Apollo 13 is silly. Everyone knows of A13.
-
I am telling you right now, that your continued membership in this forum DEPENDS on you disproving the response given to you by Mag40, regardless of whether you trust the source of the information, or admitting that you can't.
OK here's the answer Mag40:
"I don't know the answer. If you think you do, can you please supply a source?"
As of now, I see NO SOURCES that adequately apply to this niche of science.
So as of now it's just one "guess vs. another".... without sources. So far, I have none, nor does Mag40.
For fun, I asked Google AI, "why does sand rise with your boot when you jump?"
And it answered:
"When you jump, you create a sudden downward force on the sand. This force pushes the sand grains apart, creating small pockets of air between them. As you leave the ground, the air pressure beneath your boot increases, forcing the sand grains upwards into these pockets. This upward force is what causes the sand to rise with your boot."
No mention of static attraction, or friction, or adhesion -- in this answer it's ALL about AIR PRESSURE.... which was my FIRST GUESS.
I don't put stock in this answer -- except that "air pressure plays a role".
And if air pressure does play a role- then there IS upward force happened AFTER LIFTOFF -- so it's NOT a standard "Trajectory parabola" - it's something else. Which breaks the rule of "time up = time down".
-
OK here's the answer Mag40:
"I don't know the answer.
I know you don't know. I knew that when you started the bollocks about the suction cup.
If you think you do, can you please supply a source?"
Understanding Why Sand Rises When Someone Jumps on the Beach
When a person jumps on the beach, several physical principles come into play that explain why sand appears to rise or shift. This phenomenon can be attributed to the interaction between the person’s weight, the properties of sand, and friction.
1. The Mechanics of Jumping
When a person jumps, they exert a force against the ground (in this case, the sand) as they push off. According to Newton’s Third Law of Motion, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Thus, when a person pushes down on the sand with their feet, the sand pushes back with an equal force. This downward force causes some of the sand particles to be displaced.
2. Properties of Sand
Sand is composed of numerous small particles that are not tightly packed together; instead, they have spaces between them filled with air. This loose arrangement allows for movement when external forces are applied. When someone jumps onto the sand, their weight compresses these particles together momentarily before they are displaced due to the upward force generated by jumping.
3. The Role of Friction
Friction plays a significant role in this process. The interaction between the soles of a person’s shoes (or bare feet) and the surface of the sand creates frictional forces that help anchor them momentarily before jumping. However, once they jump and apply enough force to overcome this frictional grip, some sand particles are lifted into the air due to both vertical displacement from their initial position and lateral movement caused by shifting weight.
The friction between individual grains of sand also affects how easily they can move relative to one another. If there is high friction among grains (which can occur if they are wet or compacted), it may require more force to displace them compared to dry or loose sand where grains slide past each other more easily.
4. Resulting Movement of Sand
As a result of these interactions—force from jumping and friction—the upper layers of sand become agitated and can rise or scatter outward from where the jump occurred. This effect is often visually noticeable as small clouds or plumes of sand that appear when someone lands heavily on a beach.
5. Conclusion
In summary, when someone jumps on a beach, their action displaces sand due to both gravitational forces acting on their body and frictional interactions at play between their feet and the sandy surface. The combination of these factors leads to visible movement in the surrounding sand particles.
Top 3 Authoritative Sources Used in Answering this Question:
1. Physics Classroom
A comprehensive educational resource that explains fundamental physics concepts including Newton’s laws and mechanics which provide foundational knowledge relevant to understanding motion and forces involved in jumping.
2. American Journal of Physics
A peer-reviewed journal that publishes articles related to physics education and research; it includes studies on mechanics that elucidate how forces interact with materials like sand under various conditions.
3. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface
This journal covers research related to earth sciences including sediment transport processes; it provides insights into how granular materials like sand behave under different physical stresses such as those produced by human activity.
Probability that this answer is correct: 95%
Repeating this across multiple platforms yielded very similar answers.
As of now, I see NO SOURCES that adequately apply to this niche of science.
You can lead a horse to water! After all your patronising/codescending statements and insults, you don't even know simple stuff like this. It speaks volumes about your level of education and worse still about the likelihood of you admitting this. I knew and understood this before I used AI to provide an answer for you. When given the answer that you still don't know, you just deny it!
EVERYONE on this forum knows why you cannot admit this one. The tiny little parabola between John Young's boots spells the end of the road for you. Time up = time down. The parabola is in free flight. There's no idiotic suction cup or magic vacuum - any honest, logical, critical thinking person can see it and see what it means.
So as of now it's just one "guess vs. another".... without sources. So far, I have none, nor does Mag40.
False. As of now it's one person knowing (me) and one person flanneling (you).
For fun, I asked Google AI, "why does sand rise with your boot when you jump?"
For fun you attempted to educate yourself?
"When you jump, you create a sudden downward force on the sand.
This force pushes the sand grains apart, creating small pockets of air between them. As you leave the ground, the air pressure beneath your boot increases, forcing the sand grains upwards into these pockets. This upward force is what causes the sand to rise with your boot."
I did the same thing in google, same question a dozen times. The answer never varied much and it was never close to what you just typed. I can't prove you doctored your reply but it certainly seems like it.
No mention of static attraction, or friction, or adhesion -- in this answer it's ALL about AIR PRESSURE.... which was my FIRST GUESS.
If you ask AI without proper qualifiers you won't get qualified detail. My answer above gives full qualifying and where it looked.
I don't put stock in this answer -- except that "air pressure plays a role".
As stated early on, it is minsicule.
And if air pressure does play a role- then there IS upward force happened AFTER LIFTOFF
NO! The role of air pressure contributes in a tiny way to the initial force. It's not some magic suction cup crap.
However - now I know for certain that you do not understand Newtonian physics.
Once the dust/sand is in flight it is independent of any initial force! How can you not know this!
so it's NOT a standard "Trajectory parabola" - it's something else. Which breaks the rule of "time up = time down".
Chronic circular reasoning. Once the dust is airborne it is in free flight, I am staggered that you claim to understand physics but do not know this!
You have so lost this debate and lack the "100% integrity" to 1) admit your mistakes 2) admit your lack of understanding and 3) concede the blindingly obvious.
-
#1: Understanding Why Sand Rises When Someone Jumps on the Beach
#2: This effect is often visually noticeable as small clouds or plumes of sand that appear when someone lands heavily on a beach.
#1: Please source this. Google AI or Chat GPT conclusions are flawed.
#2: Your conclusions are muddied -- apparently AI doesn't know what it is describing... Rising or Landing. Here it SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS LANDING.
This illustrates the flawed nature of Google AI.
My Google AI response claims it's ALL ABOUT AIR PRESSURE... so there.
You need a real source. AI, currently, makes far too many mistakes with flawed conclusions. In your case, the result appears "CONFUSED", at best.
-
I am telling you right now, that your continued membership in this forum DEPENDS on you disproving the response given to you by Mag40, regardless of whether you trust the source of the information, or admitting that you can't.
OK here's the answer Mag40:
"I don't know the answer. If you think you do, can you please supply a source?"
As of now, I see NO SOURCES that adequately apply to this niche of science.
That is not a satisfactory answer. Tell me why each of these points is wrong. I want a direct answer for every single one of them. If you dismiss them based solely on the source you are basically admitting that you don't know what you're talking about.
When a person jumps on the beach, several physical principles come into play that explain why sand appears to rise or shift. This phenomenon can be attributed to the interaction between the person’s weight, the properties of sand, and friction.
1. The Mechanics of Jumping
When a person jumps, they exert a force against the ground (in this case, the sand) as they push off. According to Newton’s Third Law of Motion, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Thus, when a person pushes down on the sand with their feet, the sand pushes back with an equal force. This downward force causes some of the sand particles to be displaced.
2. Properties of Sand
Sand is composed of numerous small particles that are not tightly packed together; instead, they have spaces between them filled with air. This loose arrangement allows for movement when external forces are applied. When someone jumps onto the sand, their weight compresses these particles together momentarily before they are displaced due to the upward force generated by jumping.
3. The Role of Friction
Friction plays a significant role in this process. The interaction between the soles of a person’s shoes (or bare feet) and the surface of the sand creates frictional forces that help anchor them momentarily before jumping. However, once they jump and apply enough force to overcome this frictional grip, some sand particles are lifted into the air due to both vertical displacement from their initial position and lateral movement caused by shifting weight.
The friction between individual grains of sand also affects how easily they can move relative to one another. If there is high friction among grains (which can occur if they are wet or compacted), it may require more force to displace them compared to dry or loose sand where grains slide past each other more easily.
4. Resulting Movement of Sand
As a result of these interactions—force from jumping and friction—the upper layers of sand become agitated and can rise or scatter outward from where the jump occurred. This effect is often visually noticeable as small clouds or plumes of sand that appear when someone lands heavily on a beach.
5. Conclusion
In summary, when someone jumps on a beach, their action displaces sand due to both gravitational forces acting on their body and frictional interactions at play between their feet and the sandy surface. The combination of these factors leads to visible movement in the surrounding sand particles.
-
Google AI or Chat GPT conclusions are flawed.
If you are as smart as you (and only you) believe, you should have no problem why it is wrong. Merely dismissing it without providing a valid reason for why is not making you look good.
-
#1: Please source this. Google AI or Chat GPT conclusions are flawed.
It even gave you indirect avenues to fill in your knowledge vacuum. AI isn't always accurate. But when you repeat it across multiple versions and the same answer is provided, it clearly is in this case. Besides those answers are bloody obvious to anyone with basic physics.
#2: Your conclusions are muddied -- apparently AI doesn't know what it is describing... Rising or Landing. Here it SPECIFICALLY MENTIONS LANDING.
A totally inept and deliberate piece of obfuscation. The article is digressing on something it clearly explains.
"Resulting Movement of Sand
As a result of these interactions—force from jumping and friction—the upper layers of sand become agitated and can rise or scatter outward from where the jump occurred. This effect is often visually noticeable as small clouds or plumes of sand that appear when someone lands heavily on a beach."
This illustrates the flawed nature of Google AI.
You are just bullshitting now. This illustrates your inability to be educated on things you don't know. It shows how even basic Newtonian physics are not understood by you.
The parabola is in free flight, how can you not know this!
Everything else you are typing is evading this.
My Google AI response claims it's ALL ABOUT AIR PRESSURE... so there.
I have typed this into a dozen AI engines, I have duplicated that exact phrase many times. You are lying. You have doctored your text.
You need a real source. AI, currently, makes far too many mistakes with flawed conclusions. In your case, the result appears "CONFUSED", at best.
I need nothing except an honest response from somebody who seems incapable of such. As I said I'm not even a heavy hitter. JayUtah hasn't even got going on you yet and many of the regulars haven't shown up yet - better things to do than go through this bollocks with yet another "smart person" who doesn't know the subject.
(https://i.ibb.co/qrjRGpk/Jump.gif)
You ignored all the incident-relevant items in my last post and still continue to ignore the Cernan example given and the enormous wave from a simple boot flick.
Repeating:
After all your patronising/codescending statements and insults, you don't even know simple stuff like this. It speaks volumes about your level of education and worse still about the likelihood of you admitting this. I knew and understood this before I used AI to provide an answer for you. When given the answer that you still don't know, you just deny it!
EVERYONE on this forum knows why you cannot admit this one. The tiny little parabola between John Young's boots spells the end of the road for you. Time up = time down. The parabola is in free flight. There's no idiotic suction cup or magic vacuum - any honest, logical, critical thinking person can see it and see what it means.
The role of air pressure contributes in a tiny way to the initial force. It's not some magic suction cup crap.
However - now I know for certain that you do not understand Newtonian physics.
Once the dust/sand is in flight it is independent of any initial force! How can you not know this!
You have so lost this debate and lack the "100% integrity" to 1) admit your mistakes 2) admit your lack of understanding and 3) concede the blindingly obvious.
Your "argument" is this:
1. You don't know why sand rises during a jump, therefore nobody does and everything they say must be wrong because it doesn't work for your claim. All attempts to explain it are met with your inept understanding of physics.
2. You claim it falls too fast when examples have been given for it dispersing rapidly sand against sand (grey against grey) making it harder to see.
3. You haven't even acknowledged the grainy nature of the Apollo video that reduces such post-jump visibility.
4. You haven't even acknowledged the clear moving dust shadow in front of Young as he falls or the faint but noticeable ground discolouration as he lands.
5. You continue to ignore Gene Cernan's jump where he is jumping forwards. The free flight wave rises to boot height. Time up= time down.
6. Your ridiculous hand waving reply to the marks where he lands simultaneously hitting the surface and you haven't even acknowledged that this occurs on the two previous jumps!
7. Your reply to the sideways boot flick is an absurd piece of hand waving. You claim the height of the wave would occur on Earth when you know, yes, you KNOW, that it is absurdly too high and too far.
8. The wave needs to be kicked with a sideways boot flick at >7m a second and it's a metre high. Where the hell is your reasoning here?
The bottom line is this - you're wrong, you know you're wrong but you have invested too much in this to concede these. They are game-over clips. They show low gravity and vacuum.
-
You should have no problem why it is wrong. Merely dismissing it without providing a valid reason for why is not making you look good.
Simple - I asked Google AI and it TOLD ME THE OPPOSITE -- it's ALL AIR PRESSURE! I said this above. If it can give contradictory answers - it's a bad source. Google AI is "good for ideas" but very bad for "Conclusions".
-
I've played the "revision game" with AI too - and have been able to get it to say stuff that agrees with me. What I just typed in the simple question "why does sand ruse
Since you want Google AI to be the source, here it is:
Google AI, "why does sand rise with your boot when you jump?"
And it answered:
"When you jump, you create a sudden downward force on the sand. This force pushes the sand grains apart, creating small pockets of air between them. As you leave the ground, the air pressure beneath your boot increases, forcing the sand grains upwards into these pockets. This upward force is what causes the sand to rise with your boot."
Air pressure is the answer.
OR -- Google AI is not a good place for conclusions.
This was FIRST TRY -- I didn't need to give it suggestions or hints at the answer I was looking for - this is what Google AI thinks, in it's immense wisdom.
-
@Mag40 and @LunarOrbit -- so I played the same game as Mag40 did with ChatGPT, to get a MUCH BETTER ANSWER.
Please debunk this point for point, as LunarOrbit demaned that I do:
===
1. Increased Surface Area and Adhesion
Fine, powdery sand has much smaller particles compared to coarser sand. This means each grain has a greater surface area relative to its volume, and the total surface area of the sand increases dramatically. The greater surface area increases the adhesive forces (molecular attraction) between the grains of sand and between the sand and your boot.
In this case, when you press your boot down onto the powdery sand, the adhesive forces between the boot and the fine grains are strong enough to cause the sand to cling to your boot and even to the grains around the boot. This can contribute to a greater tendency for the sand to rise up or cling to the boot as it moves.
2. Capillary Forces in Fine Sand
Fine, powdery sand can retain moisture more effectively because the tiny grains have a higher surface-to-volume ratio and can hold more moisture between them. If there's any moisture at all (even if it's just humidity), the sand can form a capillary bond, where tiny water bridges form between particles. These capillary forces add to the adhesion between the grains. When you step or jump onto powdery sand, the adhesion between particles can cause them to move together, making the sand rise under your boot more noticeably.
3. Cohesion of Fine Grains
Fine sand grains are often more cohesive compared to larger grains due to the increased surface interactions. When you step on very fine sand, the increased adhesion between the grains and between the grains and your boot means the sand is more likely to cling together. As you press down, some of the fine grains might rise up along with the boot due to the cohesive forces between the particles, which are stronger than in coarser sand.
4. Powdery Nature and Low Friction
While fine sand has a greater tendency to adhere to surfaces, it also tends to have lower friction compared to coarser sand. This means that when you press down, the particles can more easily shift and move together, causing the sand to "rise" in response to the pressure from the boot. The relatively low friction between the particles means the grains can be displaced more easily, and as a result, the sand can more easily be pushed upward and cling to your boot.
5. Dust-Like Behavior
In extremely fine sand (like dust or flour-like particles), the behavior is more akin to that of a powder. In this case, the adhesive forces between the particles can dominate because the grains are light and can easily be suspended in the air. The low air resistance and increased adhesion between particles can cause the sand to behave almost like a fluid that flows under pressure. This makes the sand more likely to rise up, cling to your boot, and even form a thin dust cloud as it moves.
In Summary:
When the sand is very fine and powdery, adhesion between the grains and between the grains and your boot becomes more important because of:
Increased surface area of the particles.
The potential for capillary forces and moisture adhesion.
Greater cohesion between particles.
Low friction, which allows the particles to shift and move more easily.
These factors make fine, powdery sand more likely to rise up beneath your boot in response to the pressure from your foot, as the adhesive forces and the movement of fine particles become more pronounced.
-
I've played the "revision game" with AI too - and have been able to get it to say stuff that agrees with me. What I just typed in the simple question "why does sand ruse
Since you want Google AI to be the source, here it is:
Google AI, "why does sand rise with your boot when you jump?"
And it answered:
"When you jump, you create a sudden downward force on the sand. This force pushes the sand grains apart, creating small pockets of air between them. As you leave the ground, the air pressure beneath your boot increases, forcing the sand grains upwards into these pockets. This upward force is what causes the sand to rise with your boot."
The thing is, we're doing this for YOUR benefit. You are the one, the "smart" physics man who doesn't understand this.
Air pressure is the answer.
Nope. And guess what, even if it were(which it isn't), once the dust is off the ground it is in free flight. You continue to ignore 90% of my post.
This "upward force" comes from the ground. When the dust is off the ground, there is no more force.
How can you not know this!
As I said before you are a waste of everyone's time. You invent nonsense, then stick by it to avoid that which debunks your claim.You originally started with suction cups and vacuum.
-
@Mag40 and @LunarOrbit -- so I played the same game as Mag40 did with ChatGPT, to get a MUCH BETTER ANSWER.
Please debunk this point for point, as LunarOrbit demaned that I do:
You didn't bloody do that! You took the "I don't know" option!
How about we ask AI?
Friction plays a crucial role in the sand rising alongside a person jumping on the beach. Here's how:
1. Downward Force and Compression: When a person jumps, their weight exerts a downward force on the sand. This force compresses the sand beneath their feet, displacing it downwards.
2. Friction Between Sand Particles: As the sand is compressed, friction between the individual sand particles resists this displacement. This resistance causes some of the sand particles to be pushed upwards and outwards, creating a small cloud around the person's feet.
3. Rebound and Upward Force: The compression and subsequent release of pressure due to the jump create a rebound effect. This upward force, combined with the frictional resistance, propels the sand particles upwards.
4. Air Resistance: As the sand particles rise, they encounter air resistance. This resistance slows down the upward motion of the particles, causing them to eventually fall back to the ground.
5. Therefore, friction plays a crucial role in both the initial displacement of the sand and its subsequent upward motion. It's the interplay between the downward force, the frictional resistance between sand particles, the rebound effect, and air resistance that results in the sand rising alongside the person's jump.
-
1. Increased Surface Area and Adhesion
Fine, powdery sand has much smaller particles compared to coarser sand. This means each grain has a greater surface area relative to its volume, and the total surface area of the sand increases dramatically. The greater surface area increases the adhesive forces (molecular attraction) between the grains of sand and between the sand and your boot.
That's fine.
In this case, when you press your boot down onto the powdery sand, the adhesive forces between the boot and the fine grains are strong enough to cause the sand to cling to your boot and even to the grains around the boot. This can contribute to a greater tendency for the sand to rise up or cling to the boot as it moves.
That's fine.
2. Capillary Forces in Fine Sand
Fine, powdery sand can retain moisture more effectively because the tiny grains have a higher surface-to-volume ratio and can hold more moisture between them. If there's any moisture at all (even if it's just humidity), the sand can form a capillary bond, where tiny water bridges form between particles. These capillary forces add to the adhesion between the grains. When you step or jump onto powdery sand, the adhesion between particles can cause them to move together, making the sand rise under your boot more noticeably.
That's fine.
3. Cohesion of Fine Grains
Fine sand grains are often more cohesive compared to larger grains due to the increased surface interactions. When you step on very fine sand, the increased adhesion between the grains and between the grains and your boot means the sand is more likely to cling together. As you press down, some of the fine grains might rise up along with the boot due to the cohesive forces between the particles, which are stronger than in coarser sand.
That's a duplicate but fine.
4. Powdery Nature and Low Friction
While fine sand has a greater tendency to adhere to surfaces, it also tends to have lower friction compared to coarser sand. This means that when you press down, the particles can more easily shift and move together, causing the sand to "rise" in response to the pressure from the boot. The relatively low friction between the particles means the grains can be displaced more easily, and as a result, the sand can more easily be pushed upward and cling to your boot.
Yep, that's fine. definitely some boot clinging occurs.
5. Dust-Like Behavior
In extremely fine sand (like dust or flour-like particles), the behavior is more akin to that of a powder. In this case, the adhesive forces between the particles can dominate because the grains are light and can easily be suspended in the air. The low air resistance and increased adhesion between particles can cause the sand to behave almost like a fluid that flows under pressure. This makes the sand more likely to rise up, cling to your boot, and even form a thin dust cloud as it moves.
Yep, that's fine.
In Summary:
When the sand is very fine and powdery, adhesion between the grains and between the grains and your boot becomes more important because of:
Increased surface area of the particles.
The potential for capillary forces and moisture adhesion.
Greater cohesion between particles.
Low friction, which allows the particles to shift and move more easily.
These factors make fine, powdery sand more likely to rise up beneath your boot in response to the pressure from your foot, as the adhesive forces and the movement of fine particles become more pronounced.[/glow]
Yep. the whole thing is fine by me.
Now what. Adhesion as any student of physics knows is merely an attractive force between particles with no vector. Clinging to the boot is the result of some of the material.
In this case this is a parabolic arc in independent flight rising as high as his boot. Any physics student understands that there is no force acting on it except gravity.
-
Yep. the whole thing is fine by me.
Now what. Adhesion as any student of physics knows is merely an attractive force between particles with no vector. Clinging to the boot is the result of some of the material.
In this case this is a parabolic arc in independent flight rising as high as his boot. Any physics student understands that there is no force acting on it except gravity.
Great.. the adhesion force continues to on the sand as the boot rises. As layers fall off, it creates this filled-volume. All the way to the top.
The dust that falls off last, makes it to the peak -- CARRIED BY ADHESION.
-
Great.. the adhesion force continues to on the sand as the boot rises.
Somewhat, certainly not with the slam-dunk little parabola that sends you packing.
As layers fall off, it creates this filled-volume. All the way to the top.
I'm reading the words typed by a "smart" physicist and trying not to laugh. The layers "fall off"? By what mechanism? It's completely irrelevant anyway.
The dust that falls off last, makes it to the peak -- CARRIED BY ADHESION.
Right, so you basically have no idea what free flight is then? When the dust is off the ground there is no force acting on it to make it go higher. If you say adhesion is doing this you are talking complete bollocks. Adhesion may well clump things together and assist in increasing the volume of matter that follows the jumper. But adhesion is an attractive force. The particles attract to stuff above and below.
I always suspected you were bluffing but that last post just confirmed it. You don't know what you are talking about.
Everyone on the forum should read what you just typed.
-
The parabola is in free flight, how can you not know this!
Everything else you are typing is evading this.
I need nothing except an honest response from somebody who seems incapable of such. As I said I'm not even a heavy hitter. JayUtah hasn't even got going on you yet and many of the regulars haven't shown up yet - better things to do than go through this bollocks with yet another "smart person" who doesn't know the subject.
(https://i.ibb.co/qrjRGpk/Jump.gif)
You ignored all the incident-relevant items in my last post and still continue to ignore the Cernan example given and the enormous wave from a simple boot flick.
Repeating:
After all your patronising/codescending statements and insults, you don't even know simple stuff like this. It speaks volumes about your level of education and worse still about the likelihood of you admitting this. I knew and understood this before I used AI to provide an answer for you. When given the answer that you still don't know, you just deny it!
EVERYONE on this forum knows why you cannot admit this one. The tiny little parabola between John Young's boots spells the end of the road for you. Time up = time down. The parabola is in free flight. There's no idiotic suction cup or magic vacuum - any honest, logical, critical thinking person can see it and see what it means.
The role of air pressure contributes in a tiny way to the initial force. It's not some magic suction cup crap.
However - now I know for certain that you do not understand Newtonian physics.
Once the dust/sand is in flight it is independent of any initial force! How can you not know this!
You have so lost this debate and lack the "100% integrity" to 1) admit your mistakes 2) admit your lack of understanding and 3) concede the blindingly obvious.
Your "argument" is this:
1. You don't know why sand rises during a jump, therefore nobody does and everything they say must be wrong because it doesn't work for your claim. All attempts to explain it are met with your inept understanding of physics.
2. You claim it falls too fast when examples have been given for it dispersing rapidly sand against sand (grey against grey) making it harder to see.
3. You haven't even acknowledged the grainy nature of the Apollo video that reduces such post-jump visibility.
4. You haven't even acknowledged the clear moving dust shadow in front of Young as he falls or the faint but noticeable ground discolouration as he lands.
5. You continue to ignore Gene Cernan's jump where he is jumping forwards. The free flight wave rises to boot height. Time up= time down.
(https://i.ibb.co/vkXZd4X/Apex.png)
6. Your ridiculous hand waving reply to the marks where he lands simultaneously hitting the surface and you haven't even acknowledged that this occurs on the two previous jumps!
7. Your reply to the sideways boot flick is an absurd piece of hand waving. You claim the height of the wave would occur on Earth when you know, yes, you KNOW, that it is absurdly too high and too far.
8. The wave needs to be kicked with a sideways boot flick at >7m a second and it's over a metre high. Where the hell is your reasoning here?
Source video:
The bottom line is this - you're wrong, you know you're wrong but you have invested too much in this to concede these. They are game-over clips. They show low gravity and vacuum.
Your repeated failure to answer things addressed to you is deliberate. You are out of your depth.
Three simple demonstrations of lunar gravity and vacuum and your replies are absurd.
-
Adhesion it is.
</thread>
-
Adhesion it is.
</thread>
I'm afraid your goose is cooked. With every post you make on this little piece of footage you show how little you understand physics. And look at you wanting to close this "sand too fast" thread when you get your arse handed to you.
Adhesion is fine, it's what clumps the dust or sand together - it isn't a propelling force, it is an attractive force. It isn't the thing that lifts, it is the thing that makes more of the dust lift.
How can you not know this?
If you think this thread is going away you really have underestimated my resolve. I don't take kindly to misplaced arrogance from people who think they know better, when they prove within a few posts that they don't.
The post you made at the top of the page is not even entry-level Newtonian physics.
When things rise off the surface not connected to anything they are in free flight.
How can you not know this?
Your truly daft suggestion that adhesion is doing some sort of anti-gravity thingy is one of the dumbest things I've read on this subject.
And sadly for you it's there for all to see.
Now, suppose you start playing the 100% integrity card :
1. Provably, both my volleyball videos show the sand "falling too fast" or the reality, sand against sand, difficult to see and dispersing!? Admit it now please.
2. You've already conceded the parabola goes up to boot level, before you understood the implication, so no need to confirm that.
3. You've already confirmed the same for Cernan.
4. Can you see the shadow of the dust dispersal on the Young jump? Can you?
5. Can you see the slight ground discolouration as he lands? Again, can you?
6. Did you count the 3 synchronised soil impacts on the Cernan jump sequence? Irrefutable.
7. The main tenet of this thread is based on your inability to see grey regolith dispersing against grey regolith on grainy early-70s video! That is an absurd point of view for any scientist to start from.
8. The dust-flick from the side of his boot (adjusted for Earth speed) is an absurd >7m per second force and rising to 1.25m high. If you think that is on Earth you are delusional. Maybe the magic-clumpers all worked together ::)
I do not believe you don't get the significance of these clips. They prove that the footage must be in low gravity, all 3 of them. The continued absence of dust suspension in every single piece of EVA with astronauts, that shows clearly fine dust being kicked huge distances is, in itself, more than enough for any credible physicist to understand it is lower gravity and vacuum.
-
...
Adhesion is a "pulling force" for the dust that gets released near the top of the arc. So the majority of the journey from ground to top, was carried by adhesion forces -- the sand WANTING TO FALL SOONER, but adhesion held on to it forcing it to travel along with the boot of the astronaut.
We should meet somewhere where you aren't within your safety zone echo chamber. Let's go to a Physics forum... where they aren't influenced by the Apollo context -- but simply enjoy the Physics of it all. I don't believe they'll be agreeing with your logic, and will wonder why you can't seem to understand the concepts I've repeatedly explained to you.
I get it -- you feel the same way. You think you are espousing "true physics concepts correctly in context" and that it's me who is being the idiot. Let's settle this within a neutral context, with a physics focus.
-
Adhesion is a "pulling force" for the dust that gets released near the top of the arc.
Nope. The soil it is "pulling" up is "pulling" it down.
How the hell can you not know this!
So the majority of the journey from ground to top, was carried by adhesion forces -- the sand WANTING TO FALL SOONER, but adhesion held on to it forcing it to travel along with the boot of the astronaut.
This is just crazy gobbledygook.
We should meet somewhere where you aren't within your safety zone echo chamber. Let's go to a Physics forum... where they aren't influenced by the Apollo context -- but simply enjoy the Physics of it all. I don't believe they'll be agreeing with your logic, and will wonder why you can't seem to understand the concepts I've repeatedly explained to you.
You should just go back to your high school and ask for more tuition!
I get it -- you feel the same way. You think you are espousing "true physics concepts correctly in context" and that it's me who is being the idiot. Let's settle this within a neutral context, with a physics focus.
It's settled already. The parabola is in free-flight, you're talking complete bollocks and running away from a large list of issues. I don't feel the same way as you. I know you are flanneling because the implication closes the case, it ends completely the question of where they are. Low gravity, lunar surface.
-
How the hell can you not know this!
That's how adhesion works -- as gravity tries to pull it off of the boot, adhesion "resists" by countering gravity -- pulls up... until it separates, which happens one layer at a time.. until it's all off of the boot.
How the hell can you NOT know this?
You agreed that Adhesion is a primary force causing the dust to rise with the boot. And this is the conclusion that naturally follows.
-
That's how adhesion works -- as gravity tries to pull it off of the boot, adhesion "resists" by countering gravity -- pulls up... until it separates, which happens one layer at a time.. until it's all off of the boot.
This is probably the daftest crap anyone has attempted to foist on me. Basically your statement says, the person jumping at x metres per second squared has stuff that sticks to their boot moving at x metres per second squared. The resistant bit is what exactly? Friction.
How the hell can you NOT know this?
I know that you are flannelling in the worst way possible.
You agreed that Adhesion is a primary force causing the dust to rise with the boot.
No you liar. I agreed the descriptions about it were accurate as part of the jump. I am positive you skewed the results by asking specifically about it. It is NOT the primary force in any way. It is merely an attractive force between particles. It doesn't eject things upwards!
And this is the conclusion that naturally follows.
This is the diversion that comes form someone who has no understanding of Newtonian physics.
The little parabola is in independent flight. You have nowhere to go and are just digging a big hole of dumb statements.
Rather than offer refutations to this below, you opted for "I don't know"! Now we're being treated to the biggest load of bollocks possible.
How about we ask AI?
Friction plays a crucial role in the sand rising alongside a person jumping on the beach. Here's how:
1. Downward Force and Compression: When a person jumps, their weight exerts a downward force on the sand. This force compresses the sand beneath their feet, displacing it downwards.
2. Friction Between Sand Particles: As the sand is compressed, friction between the individual sand particles resists this displacement. This resistance causes some of the sand particles to be pushed upwards and outwards, creating a small cloud around the person's feet.
3. Rebound and Upward Force: The compression and subsequent release of pressure due to the jump create a rebound effect. This upward force, combined with the frictional resistance, propels the sand particles upwards.
4. Air Resistance: As the sand particles rise, they encounter air resistance. This resistance slows down the upward motion of the particles, causing them to eventually fall back to the ground.
5. Therefore, friction plays a crucial role in both the initial displacement of the sand and its subsequent upward motion. It's the interplay between the downward force, the frictional resistance between sand particles, the rebound effect, and air resistance that results in the sand rising alongside the person's jump.
-
...
How many times do you want to beat this dead horse?
You wrote: "It is merely an attractive force between particles."...
Correct: Top layer of dust sticks to the boot (entrenched in the treads) - the next layer sticks to this dust stuck to the boot, and so on.
As you said it's an "Attractive Force" - which in this case will be an Upward force -- pulling the dust upwards to stay stuck to the boot - for a short period of time. During that time, it exerts this force that you recognized.
I get that you won't accept any conclusion that implies your precious Apollo was not real. This is also how religions work.
Lets be done here with THIS TOPIC. We'll just have to agree to disagree -- which is normal in a debate. When's the last time you watched a "televised debate" and one of the debaters caved and agreed with the other??
Likewise, we shouldn't be surprised when the end result of a thread between MLH and Apollogist is "continued Disagreement".
However, in the process, I now understand the nature of the opposing views much better. And Readers of this thread can now decide for themselves which side of the debate seems more compelling.
That's the nature of debates. Time to end this thread, and move on.
-
I've played the "revision game" with AI too - and have been able to get it to say stuff that agrees with me. What I just typed in the simple question "why does sand ruse
Since you want Google AI to be the source, here it is:
Google AI, "why does sand rise with your boot when you jump?"
And it answered:
"When you jump, you create a sudden downward force on the sand. This force pushes the sand grains apart, creating small pockets of air between them. As you leave the ground, the air pressure beneath your boot increases, forcing the sand grains upwards into these pockets. This upward force is what causes the sand to rise with your boot."
Air pressure is the answer.
OR -- Google AI is not a good place for conclusions.
This was FIRST TRY -- I didn't need to give it suggestions or hints at the answer I was looking for - this is what Google AI thinks, in it's immense wisdom.
So, immediately you jumped and substituted vacuum for air to derive your first idea. This truly shows how little you know about this subject. My best advice to you is to man up and concede defeat, move onto other threads.
-
How many times do you want to beat this dead horse?
The horse isn't dead, only your integrity is. You claim you understand physics and are repeating once more this absurd sticky sand and ignoring clear rebuttal to it!
You wrote: "It is merely an attractive force between particles."...
I also wrote this:
Basically your statement says, the person jumping at x metres per second squared has stuff that sticks to their boot moving at x metres per second squared. The resistant bit is what exactly? Friction.
Correct:
Is this guy suggesting he knows what he is talking about now?
Top layer of dust sticks to the boot (entrenched in the treads) - the next layer sticks to this dust stuck to the boot, and so on.
That is some seriously dumb HB "physics". It is extremely irrelevant given what we are actually seeing. The "next layer" is attracting the layer above downwards in the same way it is attracted upwards. There is NO propelling force here.
Oh the irrelevant bit?
The bloody parabola isn't doing any of that, it is in independent flight with no force acting on it except gravity.
As you said it's an "Attractive Force" - which in this case will be an Upward force
Bollocks. In this case it will be a force pulling in all directions and once off of the ground subject only to gravity. What brainless world do you keep suggesting it is upwards?
pulling the dust upwards to stay stuck to the boot
And equally being pulled the other way by dust below.
for a short period of time.
The adhesive force is an attractive force within the dust, independent of the force that caused it to rise - already identified.
During that time, it exerts this force that you recognized.
Recognized as an attractive force that is in independent flight!
I get that you won't accept any conclusion that implies your precious Apollo was not real. This is also how religions work.
Your pathetic comparisons with religion again? This is not about my "precious Apollo" is is about getting somebody to understand their repetitive physics blunders. I am positive you understand and are just doing this to avoid concession.
Lets be done here with THIS TOPIC. We'll just have to agree to disagree -- which is normal in a debate. When's the last time you watched a "televised debate" and one of the debaters caved and agreed with the other??
You want to cowardly skulk away without acknowledging the obvious.
However, in the process, I now understand the nature of the opposing views much better. And Readers of this thread can now decide for themselves which side of the debate seems more compelling.
You have demonstrated that you will do anything, post any old bollocks rather than admit something that, all on its own, proves they are in low gravity.
There are numerous points raised that you have weaselled out of answering.
How about we ask AI?
Friction plays a crucial role in the sand rising alongside a person jumping on the beach. Here's how:
1. Downward Force and Compression: When a person jumps, their weight exerts a downward force on the sand. This force compresses the sand beneath their feet, displacing it downwards.
2. Friction Between Sand Particles: As the sand is compressed, friction between the individual sand particles resists this displacement. This resistance causes some of the sand particles to be pushed upwards and outwards, creating a small cloud around the person's feet.
3. Rebound and Upward Force: The compression and subsequent release of pressure due to the jump create a rebound effect. This upward force, combined with the frictional resistance, propels the sand particles upwards.
4. Air Resistance: As the sand particles rise, they encounter air resistance. This resistance slows down the upward motion of the particles, causing them to eventually fall back to the ground.
5. Therefore, friction plays a crucial role in both the initial displacement of the sand and its subsequent upward motion. It's the interplay between the downward force, the frictional resistance between sand particles, the rebound effect, and air resistance that results in the sand rising alongside the person's jump.
-
So, immediately you jumped and substituted vacuum for air to derive your first idea. This truly shows how little you know about this subject. My best advice to you is to man up and concede defeat, move onto other threads.
He cannot concede defeat, that is the problem. By conceding the totally obvious, it proves low gravity and just that one clip is game over.
Young can be measured and has been many times to be moving close enough to lunar freefall. Since the dust parabola must also be doing this, the footage needs to be speeded up by 245% to equate to terrestrial freefall. That is an irrefutable fact.
-
Adhesion it is.
</thread>
I'm afraid your goose is cooked. With every post you make on this little piece of footage you show how little you understand physics. And look at you wanting to close this "sand too fast" thread when you get your arse handed to you.
Adhesion is fine, it's what clumps the dust or sand together - it isn't a propelling force, it is an attractive force. It isn't the thing that lifts, it is the thing that makes more of the dust lift.
How can you not know this?
If you think this thread is going away you really have underestimated my resolve. I don't take kindly to misplaced arrogance from people who think they know better, when they prove within a few posts that they don't.
The post you made at the top of the page is not even entry-level Newtonian physics.
When things rise off the surface not connected to anything they are in free flight.
How can you not know this?
Your truly daft suggestion that adhesion is doing some sort of anti-gravity thingy is one of the dumbest things I've read on this subject.
And sadly for you it's there for all to see.
Now, suppose you start playing the 100% integrity card :
1. Provably, both my volleyball videos show the sand "falling too fast" or the reality, sand against sand, difficult to see and dispersing!? Admit it now please.
2. You've already conceded the parabola goes up to boot level, before you understood the implication, so no need to confirm that.
3. You've already confirmed the same for Cernan.
4. Can you see the shadow of the dust dispersal on the Young jump? Can you?
5. Can you see the slight ground discolouration as he lands? Again, can you?
6. Did you count the 3 synchronised soil impacts on the Cernan jump sequence? Irrefutable.
7. The main tenet of this thread is based on your inability to see grey regolith dispersing against grey regolith on grainy early-70s video! That is an absurd point of view for any scientist to start from.
8. The dust-flick from the side of his boot (adjusted for Earth speed) is an absurd >7m per second force and rising to 1.25m high. If you think that is on Earth you are delusional. Maybe the magic-clumpers all worked together ::)
I do not believe you don't get the significance of these clips. They prove that the footage must be in low gravity, all 3 of them. The continued absence of dust suspension in every single piece of EVA with astronauts, that shows clearly fine dust being kicked huge distances is, in itself, more than enough for any credible physicist to understand it is lower gravity and vacuum.
The horse is dead when the website owner says it is. If you lack the balls to admit the obvious, that's not my problem. You can flounce, but everyone on this forum will know what you are about.
6. Did you count the 3 synchronised soil impacts on the Cernan jump sequence? Irrefutable.
(https://i.ibb.co/xGgLfbR/9cl5k8.gif)
8. The dust-flick from the side of his boot (adjusted for Earth speed) is an absurd >7m per second force and rising to 1.25m high. If you think that is on Earth you are delusional. Maybe the magic-clumpers all worked together ::)
Actual lunar speed!
(https://i.ibb.co/PFMzmYx/9cl91y.gif)
Adjusted 245%
(https://i.ibb.co/LvbkCWK/9cl9mj.gif)
-
Basically your statement says, the person jumping at x metres per second squared has stuff that sticks to their boot moving at x metres per second squared. The resistant bit is what exactly? Friction.
I've already agreed that static-friction is one of the contributors to "adhesion". But if the "Adhesive forces" do not STOP AT LIFTOFF -- then they continue to provide upward force, AS THE BOOT RISES -- this is no longer "simple projectile math"...
For the Young dust between the feet - You've already seen that from the VERY START there is a cloud of dust that STARTS HIGHER THAN THE BOOT BOTTOM... this means it was launched at a "higher velocity" which is EXPECTED to rise high. With 2 gravities, this can instead result in SAME height. This is not apples-to-apples comparison.... because we're dealing with higher velocity projectiles.
Also to note, the scant/thin nature of the dust (that only shows up on the NON-NASA footage) - let's assume it's actually there -- lighter dust is known to "linger in the air" ... and so is another potential sign of an atmosphere.
The part that remains unexplained is "why does dust that rises to the level of the boot bottom fall so much faster??"
Your answer for Young was "it disperses quickly" -- and so I introduced the Side-Leaping example, where the dust is thick and CLOSE-- but goes from THICK to GONE - as it falls to the ground. I don't think dispersion at the rate you are proposing is reasonable. I'll note your hypothesis and objections in my document.
We've been THROUGH THIS -- we are beating the dead horse.
Next step - Agree to Disagree. Move on. We've both presented our points, and we disagree. Happens everyday.
-
Basically your statement says, the person jumping at x metres per second squared has stuff that sticks to their boot moving at x metres per second squared. The resistant bit is what exactly? Friction.
I've already agreed that static-friction is one of the contributors to "adhesion". But if the "Adhesive forces" do not STOP AT LIFTOFF -- then they continue to provide upward force, AS THE BOOT RISES -- this is no longer "simple projectile math"...
For the Young dust between the feet - You've already seen that from the VERY START there is a cloud of dust that STARTS HIGHER THAN THE BOOT BOTTOM... this means it was launched at a "higher velocity" which is EXPECTED to rise high. With 2 gravities, this can instead result in SAME height. This is not apples-to-apples comparison.... because we're dealing with higher velocity projectiles.
Also to note, the scant/thin nature of the dust (that only shows up on the NON-NASA footage) - let's assume it's actually there -- lighter dust is known to "linger in the air" ... and so is another potential sign of an atmosphere.
The part that remains unexplained is "why does dust that rises to the level of the boot bottom fall so much faster??"
Your answer for Young was "it disperses quickly" -- and so I introduced the Side-Leaping example, where the dust is thick and CLOSE-- but goes from THICK to GONE - as it falls to the ground. I don't think dispersion at the rate you are proposing is reasonable. I'll note your hypothesis and objections in my document.
We've been THROUGH THIS -- we are beating the dead horse.
Next step - Agree to Disagree. Move on. We've both presented our points, and we disagree. Happens everyday.
However, you are the accuser and thusly bears the burden of truth. You need to prove your contentions, just repeating them over and over is not sufficient proof.
-
Adhesion it is.
</thread>
I'm afraid your goose is cooked. With every post you make on this little piece of footage you show how little you understand physics. And look at you wanting to close this "sand too fast" thread when you get your arse handed to you.
Adhesion is fine, it's what clumps the dust or sand together - it isn't a propelling force, it is an attractive force. It isn't the thing that lifts, it is the thing that makes more of the dust lift.
How can you not know this?
If you think this thread is going away you really have underestimated my resolve. I don't take kindly to misplaced arrogance from people who think they know better, when they prove within a few posts that they don't.
The post you made at the top of the page is not even entry-level Newtonian physics.
When things rise off the surface not connected to anything they are in free flight.
How can you not know this?
Your truly daft suggestion that adhesion is doing some sort of anti-gravity thingy is one of the dumbest things I've read on this subject.
And sadly for you it's there for all to see.
Now, suppose you start playing the 100% integrity card :
1. Provably, both my volleyball videos show the sand "falling too fast" or the reality, sand against sand, difficult to see and dispersing!? Admit it now please.
2. You've already conceded the parabola goes up to boot level, before you understood the implication, so no need to confirm that.
3. You've already confirmed the same for Cernan.
4. Can you see the shadow of the dust dispersal on the Young jump? Can you?
5. Can you see the slight ground discolouration as he lands? Again, can you?
6. Did you count the 3 synchronised soil impacts on the Cernan jump sequence? Irrefutable.
7. The main tenet of this thread is based on your inability to see grey regolith dispersing against grey regolith on grainy early-70s video! That is an absurd point of view for any scientist to start from.
8. The dust-flick from the side of his boot (adjusted for Earth speed) is an absurd >7m per second force and rising to 1.25m high. If you think that is on Earth you are delusional. Maybe the magic-clumpers all worked together ::)
I do not believe you don't get the significance of these clips. They prove that the footage must be in low gravity, all 3 of them. The continued absence of dust suspension in every single piece of EVA with astronauts, that shows clearly fine dust being kicked huge distances is, in itself, more than enough for any credible physicist to understand it is lower gravity and vacuum.
The horse is dead when the website owner says it is. If you lack the balls to admit the obvious, that's not my problem. You can flounce, but everyone on this forum will know what you are about.
6. Did you count the 3 synchronised soil impacts on the Cernan jump sequence? Irrefutable.
(https://i.ibb.co/xGgLfbR/9cl5k8.gif)
8. The dust-flick from the side of his boot (adjusted for Earth speed) is an absurd >7m per second force and rising to 1.25m high. If you think that is on Earth you are delusional. Maybe the magic-clumpers all worked together ::)
Actual lunar speed!
(https://i.ibb.co/PFMzmYx/9cl91y.gif)
Adjusted 245%
(https://i.ibb.co/LvbkCWK/9cl9mj.gif)
The 100% no integrity responses continue as you run away from the entire content of my post.
What physicist thinks adhesion is some propellant force? The dust sticking to his boot isn't being propelled. You quote my statement showing your claim to be false and you just don't acknowledge it
Answer this, point for point and address the things you keep running away from.
-
However, you are the accuser and thusly bears the burden of truth. You need to prove your contentions, just repeating them over and over is not sufficient proof.
I've presented my case that for ONE FOOTAGE EXAMPLE (the leaping astronaut) "the dust falls faster than the astronaut" - that's it. I will note the counter-claim that "it just dissipated that fast", but I don't find that plausible because of how close we are, and how much dust there is. Both cases have been presented fully.
Now just let the Readers can decide. Are you scared they won't side with you?
This topic has come to completion.
-
I've presented my case that for ONE FOOTAGE EXAMPLE (the leaping astronaut) "the dust falls faster than the astronaut" - that's it. I will note the counter-claim that "it just dissipated that fast", but I don't find that plausible because of how close we are, and how much dust there is. Both cases have been presented fully.
You lie. You have evaded rebuttal and come up with nonsensical "physics" to hand wave away evidence. I also am convinced you doctored your AI response, having typed that exact phrase in 20 times I have not got anything to even come close to it.
The dust "not being visible" and you continue to cowardly evade the points I raised concerning this. Points 4/5 in that list + grainy grey on grey video.
Are you scared they won't side with you?
How do you figure they'll let us know?
This topic has come to completion.
Run away. Typical HB behaviour. I can't force you to answer the large post of mine just above, but if you are here for the reasons you claim, I shouldn't bloody well have to!
-
However, you are the accuser and thusly bears the burden of truth. You need to prove your contentions, just repeating them over and over is not sufficient proof.
I've presented my case that for ONE FOOTAGE EXAMPLE (the leaping astronaut) "the dust falls faster than the astronaut" - that's it. I will note the counter-claim that "it just dissipated that fast", but I don't find that plausible because of how close we are, and how much dust there is. Both cases have been presented fully.
Now just let the Readers can decide. Are you scared they won't side with you?
This topic has come to completion.
How did you measure that? Because the regolith touched the ground first?, Weli some of the regolith departed the boot early, some later and finally the last. The earlier regolith will most assuredly hit the surface prior to the astronaut. Simple physics time up = time down. Or hadn't you considered that?
-
How did you measure that? Because the regolith touched the ground first?, Weli some of the regolith departed the boot early, some later and finally the last. The earlier regolith will most assuredly hit the surface prior to the astronaut. Simple physics time up = time down. Or hadn't you considered that?
My concern is that the dust that was JUST BENEATH THE BOOT, at the top of the apex.... ALSO disappears very quickly.
There is also a HUGE chunk of dust that only makes it up half-way -- yet still is as high as his right-boot, but falls way quicker than his Center of Mass, or the right foot.
Downloading the MP4 and viewing with Media Player - is a good way to step through this.
Projectile Parabola math, dictates that it wakes about 71% of the time to fall HALF the distance.
At frame 12 you can see this mass of half-height dust... at least even with his right foot. By frame 17 it's already on the ground, while the astronauts center-of-mass (body) don't hit reach ground level until frame 25.... So this dust fell in 5 frames, vs. 13 frames, which equates to the 2.6x faster...
-
Run away. Typical HB behaviour. I can't force you to answer the large post of mine just above, but if you are here for the reasons you claim, I shouldn't bloody well have to!
There is nothing more to present here. We are simply RE-PRESENTING THE EXACT SAME ARGMENTS -- repeatedly. This specific topic is has reached it's terminal phase.
-
Now, suppose you start playing the 100% integrity card :
1. Provably, both my volleyball videos show the sand "falling too fast" or the reality, sand against sand, difficult to see and dispersing!? Admit it now please.
2. You've already conceded the parabola goes up to boot level, before you understood the implication, so no need to confirm that.
3. You've already confirmed the same for Cernan.
4. Can you see the shadow of the dust dispersal on the Young jump? Can you?
5. Can you see the slight ground discolouration as he lands? Again, can you?
6. Did you count the 3 synchronised soil impacts on the Cernan jump sequence? Irrefutable.
7. The main tenet of this thread is based on your inability to see grey regolith dispersing against grey regolith on grainy early-70s video! That is an absurd point of view for any scientist to start from.
8. The dust-flick from the side of his boot (adjusted for Earth speed) is an absurd >7m per second force and rising to 1.25m high. If you think that is on Earth you are delusional. Maybe the magic-clumpers all worked together ::)
I do not believe you don't get the significance of these clips. They prove that the footage must be in low gravity, all 3 of them. The continued absence of dust suspension in every single piece of EVA with astronauts, that shows clearly fine dust being kicked huge distances is, in itself, more than enough for any credible physicist to understand it is lower gravity and vacuum.
-
...
Write me up something that you'd like to appear in the KB document as your rebuttal, and I can include it.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aos6_EqxlNfpLUGoSSemppmw_lUjl0hiby99szCKYi4/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aos6_EqxlNfpLUGoSSemppmw_lUjl0hiby99szCKYi4/edit?usp=sharing)
-
...
Write me up something that you'd like to appear in the KB document as your rebuttal, and I can include it.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aos6_EqxlNfpLUGoSSemppmw_lUjl0hiby99szCKYi4/edit?usp=sharing (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aos6_EqxlNfpLUGoSSemppmw_lUjl0hiby99szCKYi4/edit?usp=sharing)
OK, " The owner of this document doesn't understand physics. They have equated a non-propelling force involving boot adhesion to an example of free-flight that clearly has none of that. They refuse to address this because it proves the footage is in lower gravity.
A half dozen times, they have ignored significant statements and questions:
Now, suppose you start playing the 100% integrity card :
1. Provably, both my volleyball videos show the sand "falling too fast" or the reality, sand against sand, difficult to see and dispersing!? Admit it now please.
2. You've already conceded the parabola goes up to boot level, before you understood the implication, so no need to confirm that.
3. You've already confirmed the same for Cernan.
4. Can you see the shadow of the dust dispersal on the Young jump? Can you?
5. Can you see the slight ground discolouration as he lands? Again, can you?
6. Did you count the 3 synchronised soil impacts on the Cernan jump sequence? Irrefutable.
7. The main tenet of this thread is based on your inability to see grey regolith dispersing against grey regolith on grainy early-70s video! That is an absurd point of view for any scientist to start from.
8. The dust-flick from the side of his boot (adjusted for Earth speed) is an absurd >7m per second force and rising to 1.25m high. If you think that is on Earth you are delusional. Maybe the magic-clumpers all worked together ::)
I do not believe you don't get the significance of these clips. They prove that the footage must be in low gravity, all 3 of them. The continued absence of dust suspension in every single piece of EVA with astronauts, that shows clearly fine dust being kicked huge distances is, in itself, more than enough for any credible physicist to understand it is lower gravity and vacuum.
"
The post at the top of this page has not had any credible reply - most of it has been simply ignored.
-
Najak, the forum can see you weaselling out of answering these points, whilst you studiously stick to your stupid strawman about adhesion. The parabola is not near his boot, not sticking to anything and is in free independent flight.
Your worst claim is that you are going to show 100% integrity, when you are showing close to zero. Every point raised is resulting in your scant refusal to accept it under any circumstances
You ignored all the incident-relevant items in my last post and still continue to ignore the Cernan example given and the enormous wave from a simple boot flick. Itemised at the top of this page.
Repeating:
After all your patronising/codescending statements and insults, you don't even know simple stuff like this. It speaks volumes about your level of education and worse still about the likelihood of you admitting this. I knew and understood this before I used AI to provide an answer for you. When given the answer that you still don't know, you just deny it!
EVERYONE on this forum knows why you cannot admit this one. The tiny little parabola between John Young's boots spells the end of the road for you. Time up = time down. The parabola is in free flight. There's no idiotic suction cup or magic vacuum - any honest, logical, critical thinking person can see it and see what it means.
(https://i.ibb.co/qrjRGpk/Jump.gif)
-
My debate time with you is a lot like time spent with an old friend of mine, who didn't do so well in school, but he was convinced that I was boneheaded for telling him my reasons for not accepting the Bible as God's One True Word. No matter what I said, I was "boneheaded". It was fruitless.
Keep your snidey inaccurate crap to yourself. You are running away from evidence that disproves your whole position.
#1: Only on earth can the "suction" force add to the "adhesion"... Suction vs. propulsion produces the same result - in cases like this, is easier on the brain to simply deal with suction/adhesion as a "pulling force"...
What a load of old bollocks. Adhesion is a multi-direction attractive force. There is virtually zero "suction" - your dumb water analogy lifts virtually no water ( a far denser material). Your insistence on stating this inept strawman is diversion, given that the parabola is nowhere near the sole of his boot.
#2: On earth, where astronaut is being partially lifted by a cable, while the dust is not -- Therefore, on earth, the dust is trying to fall away from the boot the WHOLE TIME -- but if adhesion holds it tight, this force is "pulling it" along AFTER Launch - -therefore not a plain/vanilla parabola.
Blah, blah, blah. The parabola is not near the sole of his boot.
#3: For John Young's case, IF we assume that the video you have is legit (given that it does NOT match that of the one NASA links to) -- we HAVE OBVIOUS PROOF that at the START of the jump, there is a thick cloud of dust that is LEADING THE BOOT -- it was LAUNCHED FASTER.... so it would be expected to rise more. The other factor at work, if on earth, is atmosphere... perhaps the reason that it's so faint (and NOT VISIBLE AT ALL ON THE NASA LINK) -- is that it's just the lighter/smaller dust particles!... this too can only happen on Earth.
It's on every single version of this event, notably on the HB Bible film by David Percy! The obvious, visible parabola is not faint, very distinctive and rises in a smooth and synchronised motion with the jumper.
Footage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59stz-Qe7Lw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59stz-Qe7Lw)
This is from page 1 - his own link!
(https://i.ibb.co/M9k4Hfk/Apollo-16-big-navy-jump-salute-with-timer.gif)
-
I've copied najak's post from the thread where LunarOriber asks it be discussed in the correct one:
#1: Only on earth can the "suction" force add to the "adhesion"... Suction vs. propulsion produces the same result - in cases like this, is easier on the brain to simply deal with suction/adhesion as a "pulling force"...
#2: On earth, where astronaut is being partially lifted by a cable, while the dust is not -- Therefore, on earth, the dust is trying to fall away from the boot the WHOLE TIME -- but if adhesion holds it tight, this force is "pulling it" along AFTER Launch - -therefore not a plain/vanilla parabola.
#3: For John Young's case, IF we assume that the video you have is legit (given that it does NOT match that of the one NASA links to) -- we HAVE OBVIOUS PROOF that at the START of the jump, there is a thick cloud of dust that is LEADING THE BOOT -- it was LAUNCHED FASTER.... so it would be expected to rise more. The other factor at work, if on earth, is atmosphere... perhaps the reason that it's so faint (and NOT VISIBLE AT ALL ON THE NASA LINK) -- is that it's just the lighter/smaller dust particles!... this too can only happen on Earth.
Small particles in Earth are more likely to be affected by atmoshpere: their movement will be impeded more effectively and would be dispersed by that resistance. We do not see that in the Apollo footage. Ever. There are no billowing clouds. Ever.
You have focused exclusively on the upward trajectory of particles, whose size you do not know and whose relation to the front of Young's boot you also do not know, and conveniently ignored the dispersal of material as Young approaches the spot where he jumps, and also by Duke as he moves into position. You need to explain where the film set is, who crewed it, where the alleged harnesses were attached and who operated them, and how the live broadcast of this EVA showed a correct view of Earth.
You are also making a big deal out of the fact that different video resolutions of the live TV exist for the same event when it means nothing. Use whichever source is best.
-
#1: There are no billowing clouds. Ever.
#2: You have focused exclusively on the upward trajectory of particles...
#3: You are also making a big deal out of the fact that different video resolutions....
#1: ... that we notice. Just as they said "there are no signs of dust, or we'd know it was filmed!" - but if you check the footage, it's full of "white dots" that appear only for one frame -- the same as dust would produce. The "dust between the feet" is a small "billow of dust".
#2: Nope-- @Mag40 is FORCING THIS.... I've said from the start - "this isn't the main point" - the main point is how fast the dust clouds fall. And I switched my main case over the CLOSE-UP of an astronaut jumping sideways, so that we could better witness/verify that the Dust really does fall a LOT faster than the astronaut, to remove the Apollogies made for the Young case.
#3: Nope --- I'm making a deal that his footage may have been modified ("enhanced" they might say) to show dust between the feet, whereas on the NASA footage it's not evident at all.
The main point for this dust is that we SEE CLEARLY from the onset that there is a thick cloud of dust ABOVE the boot bottom -- how do you think it got there? Does this tell you anything about the launch velocity of this dust? And how might this impact the predicted trajectory?
The Young case has some potential ambiguity -- which is why I focus on the CLEAREST CASE -- of the astronaut doing it from the side, very close, with thick clouds of dust that rise with the foot, but fall to the ground WAY faster.
-
#2: Nope-- @Mag40 is FORCING THIS.... I've said from the start - "this isn't the main point" - the main point is how fast the dust clouds fall.
Oh, poor you having to defend counter claims! Now quit with this cowardly evasion, posts 143-145
-
#2: Nope-- @Mag40 is FORCING THIS.... I've said from the start - "this isn't the main point" - the main point is how fast the dust clouds fall.
Oh, poor you having to defend counter claims! Now quit with this cowardly evasion, posts 143-145
Those have been answered many times already. We disagree. Without a neutral physics nerd to weigh in - there's simply nothing else to say. I've agreed to include your responses as "the best that Apollogists can muster" in their defense. So your words/defense will reach my readers/audience as well. I don't think your arguments hold water - because I've debunked them cleanly. But you seem incapable of realizing it.
-
#1: There are no billowing clouds. Ever.
#2: You have focused exclusively on the upward trajectory of particles...
#3: You are also making a big deal out of the fact that different video resolutions....
#1: ... that we notice. Just as they said "there are no signs of dust, or we'd know it was filmed!" - but if you check the footage, it's full of "white dots" that appear only for one frame -- the same as dust would produce. The "dust between the feet" is a small "billow of dust".
#2: Nope-- @Mag40 is FORCING THIS.... I've said from the start - "this isn't the main point" - the main point is how fast the dust clouds fall. And I switched my main case over the CLOSE-UP of an astronaut jumping sideways, so that we could better witness/verify that the Dust really does fall a LOT faster than the astronaut, to remove the Apollogies made for the Young case.
#3: Nope --- I'm making a deal that his footage may have been modified ("enhanced" they might say) to show dust between the feet, whereas on the NASA footage it's not evident at all.
The main point for this dust is that we SEE CLEARLY from the onset that there is a thick cloud of dust ABOVE the boot bottom -- how do you think it got there? Does this tell you anything about the launch velocity of this dust? And how might this impact the predicted trajectory?
The Young case has some potential ambiguity -- which is why I focus on the CLEAREST CASE -- of the astronaut doing it from the side, very close, with thick clouds of dust that rise with the foot, but fall to the ground WAY faster.
You keep calling it a thick cloud of dust. It is not. It is a spray of material. Any material above his boots was launched there by his boot.
If there was an atmosphere, the material would behave completely differently. Your claims that it falls faster than an astronaut, and that it has been added afterwards, are simply that: claims.
They are unsubstantiated, and do not match the wealth of other observations. They require the answers to a whole range of other questions that you have failed to provide.
The point of the live TV sequence is that it recorded a photography session. Those photographs show the regolith in motion. Are they doctored?
-
This seems like good time to post links to the two still photos of the jump salutes, plus the ground elapsed times, dialogue, and comments in the Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal:
AS16-113-18339HR
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18339HR.jpg
AS16-113-18340HR
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18340HR.jpg
Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal (condensed version below)
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a16/a16.alsepoff.html#1202523
120:25:23 Duke: Hey, John, this is perfect, with the LM and the Rover and you and Stone Mountain. And the old flag. Come on out here and give me a salute. Big Navy salute.
120:25:35 Young: Look at this. (Pause)
[John walks into view and waves his right arm in and out at shoulder level to position the restraining cable so that he can salute.]
120:25:40 England: That's a pretty outstanding picture here, I tell you.
120:25:42 Duke: Come on; a little bit closer. Okay, here we go. A big one.
[John bends his knees slightly, springs about a meter off the ground, and salutes. He is off the ground about 1.45 seconds which, in the lunar gravity field, means that he launched himself at a velocity of about 1.17 m/s and reached a maximum height of 0.42 m. This superb picture is AS16-113-18339. Note that John's total weight - body, suit, and backpack, is about 30 kilograms or 65 pounds. In Houston, Tony chuckles with delight.]
[Jones - "John's jumps says to me he's got a great deal of confidence this early."]
[Duke - "His balance was really extraordinary."]
120:25:49 Duke: Off the ground. Once more. (Pause) There we go.
[John's second jump lasts about 1.30 seconds and, consequently, his launch velocity is about 1.05 m/s and his maximum height is 0.34 m. This picture is AS16-113-18340.]
120:25:54 Young: (Garbled) (Pause)
[While John walks toward him, Charlie takes the Hasselblad off his RCU bracket and gives it to John.]
120:26:05 Young: I'd like to see an Air Force salute, Charlie, but I don't think they salute in the Air Force.
[Charlie reaches the flag and bounces around to face John.]
120:26:08 Duke: Yes, sir; we do.
120:26:09 Young: (Laughing)
120:26:10 Duke: And fly high and straight and land soft.
120:26:13 Young: Okay, Charlie, say when.
120:26:15 Duke: Here we go.
[Charlie salutes. The picture is AS16-113-18341.]
120:26:16 Young: Do it again.
120:26:17 Duke: One for you. Okay, wait a minute; one more.
[These pictures are AS16-113-18342 and 113-18343.]
120:26:19 England: This looks like a good time for some good news here....
120:26:20 Young: Okay.
120:26:21 Duke: (To Young) Got it?
120:26:21 England: ...The House passed the space budget yesterday, 277 to 60, which includes the vote for the Shuttle.
120:26:30 LM Crew: Beautiful. Wonderful. Beautiful.
[John and Charlie return to the Rover. Once again, Charlie does a leisurely skip, getting slightly off the ground each time. John takes the Hasselblad off the RCU bracket and walks back.]
120:26:33 Duke: Tony, again I'll say it, with that salute, I'm proud to be an American, I'll tell you. What a program and what a place and what an experience.
120:26:42 Young: And I'll say it too.
120:26:43 England: So am I.
120:26:44 Young: The country needs that Shuttle mighty bad. You'll see.
[John became the Chief of the Astronaut Office in 1975 and, later, appointed himself to command the first Shuttle flight. STS-1 was 36-orbit mission launched on April 12, 1981, the twentieth anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's Vostok 1 flight. The pilot - and only other crewmember - on STS-1 was Robert Crippen.]
-
#1: You keep calling it a thick cloud of dust. It is not. It is a spray of material. Any material above his boots was launched there by his boot.
#2: Your claims that it falls faster than an astronaut, and that it has been added afterwards, are simply that: claims.
#3: The point of the live TV sequence is that it recorded a photography session. Those photographs show the regolith in motion. Are they doctored?
#1: Call it what you will - it was a thick volume of dust to the right of his boot AHEAD of his boot -- indicating a faster launch velocity... Do you see this?
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2019.0;attach=1262)
#2: "Added afterwards"? The MLH claim is that this could be explained by a cable lifting up about 50% of Young's weight. Thus the dust falls faster than Young.
#3: I am unfamiliar with what proof you are referring to that you believe was "non-feasible to fake". Show me a link, and we can assess.
-
This seems like good time to post links to the two still photos of the jump salutes, plus the ground elapsed times, dialogue, and comments in the Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal:
AS16-113-18339HR
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18339HR.jpg
Your timing was immaculate, thanks. This high resolution photo shows no "dust parabola" between the feet - here we see no dust at all, at apex.
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2019.0;attach=1264)
-
#1: ... that we notice.
What the hell? Confirming the point. There are no billowing clouds!
but if you check the footage, it's full of "white dots" that appear only for one frame -- the same as dust would produce. The "dust between the feet" is a small "billow of dust".
That is possibly the stupidest claim you've made and the competition is fierce.
#2: Nope-- @Mag40 is FORCING THIS.... I've said from the start - "this isn't the main point" - the main point is how fast the dust clouds fall. Dust really does fall a LOT faster than the astronaut, to remove the Apollogies made for the Young case.
That is correct, I am "forcing" this. You cited the jump and ignored everything that didn't fit and made conclusions that ignored conditions.
#3: Nope --- I'm making a deal that his footage may have been modified ("enhanced" they might say) to show dust between the feet, whereas on the NASA footage it's not evident at all.
Yet the video YOU supplied in post 1 shows the same parabola.
The main point for this dust is that we SEE CLEARLY from the onset that there is a thick cloud of dust ABOVE the boot bottom -- how do you think it got there? Does this tell you anything about the launch velocity of this dust? And how might this impact the predicted trajectory?
It tells me 2 things, that you are deliberately exaggerating it and on clearer footage looks mainly to be the toe of his left boot facing inwards before he jumps! I also see that the circle you make around it, is pretty much totally below his boot anyway!
The Young case has some potential ambiguity -- which is why I focus on the CLEAREST CASE -- of the astronaut doing it from the side, very close, with thick clouds of dust that rise with the foot, but fall to the ground WAY faster.
There is no ambiguity, just you blundering in with a claim and running away from numerous points that don't fit with your immovable position.
Now it looks like I need to ask you to stop acting like the bog-standard HB you claimed not to be and start showing this illusive "100% integrity"!
1. Here is an animated gif, taken from YOUR video in the opening post. It is clear beyond any doubt that the footage you snidely claimed was doctored has not been because the same clear parabola rises (nowhere near the soles of his boots!) to the same height and obviously at the same time.
Explain why you ignored this and reasserted your claim point #3 above?
(https://i.ibb.co/M9k4Hfk/Apollo-16-big-navy-jump-salute-with-timer.gif)
2. Your useless "physics" about "suction-cups" and the attractive force "adhesion" are not even close to accurate or relevant for this scenario. The forum can see you squirming on this with no honest intent to answer with any integrity.
Time up = time down - we see time up very clearly, explain why you keep evading this obvious evidence?
(https://i.ibb.co/qrjRGpk/Jump.gif)
3. In that gif, there is a shadow of dust moving forwards on the left and when he is descending there is slight ground discolouration as the dust settles - it moves forwards as a wave.
Does your "100% integrity allow you to even answer this(!) let alone admit it?
4. Both my volleyball gifs showed on very clear modern video that sand can appear to disperse very fast. It is merely hard to see sand on sand. For Apollo, not only is the footage far more grainier and lower quality it;s darker with grey against grey.
Explain why you have not honestly acknowledged this, preferring to find instances where conditions are more favourable also on modern clear footage?
5. The following Gene Cernan gif was presented to and ignored. It shows that the same soil impact occurs at landing on 3 jumps.
Why have you ignored this? Please don't insult everyone with some bollocks about coincidence.
(https://i.ibb.co/xGgLfbR/9cl5k8.gif)
6. For the last of the 3 Cernan jumps, we clearly see the dust coming down in a wave as the final impact occurs. Your explanation for this was crap about how long the ground mark occurred for. Irrelevant given the nature of the camera and discolouration of the soil. Here's better footage and clearer footage below.
How is this clearly not very solid proof the soil ISN'T too falling too fast?
(https://i.ibb.co/bL5GhcF/9d1xgl.gif)
7. This last one is concerns very much your "100% integrity". I don't know if you've ever seen somebody kick dirt around but a little sideways flick of the boot, on Earth, simply does not do what we are seeing. The dust-flick from the side of his boot (adjusted for Earth speed) is an absurd >7m per second force and rising to 1.25m high. In addition to your hand waving you also suggested without evidence that the footage was speed adjusted around the event. Very irrelevant given that this is absurdly unreal for Earth freefall and action.
Explain to the forum how you can possibly suggest does this on Earth, that height, distance and speed? In addition, notice how the astronauts are exhibiting comedic motion when adjusted.
Lunar footage:
(https://i.ibb.co/PFMzmYx/9cl91y.gif)
Adjusted +245% for Earth speed:
(https://i.ibb.co/LvbkCWK/9cl9mj.gif)
I will approach the moderator if you do not give satisfactory responses to these questions.
-
#1: You keep calling it a thick cloud of dust. It is not. It is a spray of material. Any material above his boots was launched there by his boot.
#2: Your claims that it falls faster than an astronaut, and that it has been added afterwards, are simply that: claims.
#3: The point of the live TV sequence is that it recorded a photography session. Those photographs show the regolith in motion. Are they doctored?
#1: Call it what you will - it was a thick volume of dust to the right of his boot AHEAD of his boot -- indicating a faster launch velocity... Do you see this?
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2019.0;attach=1262)
There is a collection of surface material that is launched by the toe of Young's boot as he jumps. You can clearly see his toe go forward digging in the ground as he braces his knee to jump. Dust implies a specific particle size. "Thick volume" implies a substantial quantity. There is no cloud of 'dust' indicating any impedance from an atmosphere. Ever.
#2: "Added afterwards"? The MLH claim is that this could be explained by a cable lifting up about 50% of Young's weight. Thus the dust falls faster than Young.
The dust falls at a rate consistent with lunar gravity, as does Young.
You claimed it is absent from footage and that implied it was added afterwards:
" I'm making a deal that his footage may have been modified ("enhanced" they might say) to show dust between the feet, whereas on the NASA footage it's not evident at all."
It was always visible. It is visible in the original photos taken by Duke. The quality isn't the best, but material can be seen obscuring the LM shadow in my original copies:
https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/ephemera/AWST/AWST_May_15_72.pdf
https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/ephemera/photos/apollo/a16/spacearts-4.pdf
and this one:
http://stellar-views.com/images/AS16_Young_Flag.jpg
I've attached a crop from the March to the Moon and Flickr sources to illustrate the point. The video and photographs were not enhanced to add detail, there just exist different quality copies of the footage. You would not be the first of your ilk to claim that details were altered later to mask something that was discovered by "researchers". You would not be the first to be wrong about it.
As for it falling faster than Young, you would need to specifically identify exactly the particles you consider to have done this. What I see is some particles given added momentum from his boot that rise higher, some that have less added momentum that do not. I also see it becoming more difficult to see as it spreads out.
#3: I am unfamiliar with what proof you are referring to that you believe was "non-feasible to fake". Show me a link, and we can assess.
What I'm pointing out to you is that the few seconds of footage you are fixating on exist within a wider context: an EVA several hours long broadcast on live TV. I even showed you a newspaper front page demonstrating that it was seen on Earth at the time. For Young to have been suspended on a harness, there would need to be a harness attachment, several harness wires, harness operators, all operating in a huge film set broadcasting signals detected from the moon and featuring views of Earth.
-
This seems like good time to post links to the two still photos of the jump salutes, plus the ground elapsed times, dialogue, and comments in the Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal:
AS16-113-18339HR
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18339HR.jpg
Your timing was immaculate, thanks. This high resolution photo shows no "dust parabola" between the feet - here we see no dust at all, at apex.
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2019.0;attach=1264)
What do you think this is?
-
This seems like good time to post links to the two still photos of the jump salutes, plus the ground elapsed times, dialogue, and comments in the Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal:
AS16-113-18339HR
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18339HR.jpg
Your timing was immaculate, thanks. This high resolution photo shows no "dust parabola" between the feet - here we see no dust at all, at apex.
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2019.0;attach=1264)
What do you think this is?
Snap!
(https://i.ibb.co/FXS7vpG/Capture.jpg)
-
What do you think this is?
Sand splatter on the ground; NOT between his feet. The sand that rose with John, is already on the ground, splattering.
Note the "thickness at the ground" - this is what a "splash pattern" looks like -- this isn't what "dust in process of falling" looks like -- so it's already landed, and is splashing back up a small amount.
So it's NOT "dust between the feet at apex"... which was your favorite (false?) claim. It only shows up in your version of the video -- not in this photo, nor in the NASA linked video. Your video simply looks "enhanced/modified" to make it look like dust is there... when this may not be the case at all.
-
What do you think this is?
Sand splatter on the ground; NOT between his feet. The sand that rose with John, is already on the ground, splattering.
Here is a screen-print from the second jump where Young's launch has virtually no displacement.
(https://i.ibb.co/K2JQ1Vw/Captain-Bullshit.jpg)(https://i.ibb.co/FXS7vpG/Capture.jpg)
Splatter? What splatter? Where did it go?
Answer my post please!
-
What I'm pointing out to you is that the few seconds of footage you are fixating on exist within a wider context: an EVA several hours long broadcast on live TV. I even showed you a newspaper front page demonstrating that it was seen on Earth at the time. For Young to have been suspended on a harness, there would need to be a harness attachment, several harness wires, harness operators, all operating in a huge film set broadcasting signals detected from the moon and featuring views of Earth.
The dust above the toe at apex seems to be a good one to consider.
Here's my thoughts:
1. First photo in this sequence shows NO DUST above the foot.
2. So we should assume that for the 2nd sequence photo, that at BEST, it was launched at the Apex by a toe jerk? If it were launched from the start-- it would have showed up in the prior photo.
If launched at apex... then the dust flew that distance in < 0.1 second... Which is long before earth's gravity could have much effect. (0.5 * accel * t-Squared, where t-squared is only 0.01).
So the trajectory of dust launched on Earth vs. Moon after 0.1 second is less than 2-inches different. Not enough to discern the actual gravity influencing it.
The first photo in this sequence:
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2019.0;attach=1272)
-
The dust above the toe at apex seems to be a good one to consider.
All the dust is ejected forwards. Your photogrammetry "skills" are puny.
Here's my thoughts:
1. First photo in this sequence shows NO DUST above the foot.
Go and answer post 154 - or are you unable to? You make all this rhetoric in the launch thread and are doing far worse here!
2. So we should assume
We assume you have no photogrammetry skills and are evading things that show you are hopelessly wrong.
If launched at apex
Grey on grey, lower and dispersed.
Did you really just run away from the question? Where is the ground splatter?
-
@Mag40: Would you like to meet me somewhere neutral? Of all the people commenting here so much, you seem to me to have the most questionable qualifications and skillset. Let's put this debate in front of a physics-minded crowd, and get some added feedback. Otherwise, you are just "barking" from the comfort/safety of your own support group and echo chamber here.
We've beat this horse to a pulp. There is nothing new being said. We don't agree. I believe my logic is better than yours. You believe otherwise. This is an impasse. Please act like an adult and simply realize that it's time to cease wasting time producing zero fruit. You are just "barking" now, saying nothing new.
-
@Mag40: Would you like to meet me somewhere neutral? Of all the people commenting here so much, you seem to me to have the most questionable qualifications and skillset.
Then instead of continued snide remarks, answer the detailed post at the top of this page. It should be easy for you. You've evaded it "to a pulp" and posited ridiculous crap about "suction cups", "adhesion", large clumps of dirt - everything but the items detailed above.
Your "photogrammetry" skills didn't notice that the regolith was projected forwards?
Where has the ground splatter gone?
My "questionable qualifications and skillset" is kicking your butt.
-
Your "photogrammetry" skills didn't notice that the regolith was projected forwards?
Please detail how you've concluded that this dust is "only forward" and not upwards at all?
The way I see this, I'd guess it to be upwards at least at 30 degrees. Not straight forward.
But I'm wondering what other photographic cues do we have to determine this angle of launch?
And one thing we do see from this is that the photo just 0.3 second earlier -- has NO DUST AT ALL.... which supports the notion of a "top of apex launch"... which would produce about the same resulting photo either on Moon or Earth... because the difference in gravity takes more than 0.1 second to produce more than 2 inchces of variation.
-
Where has the ground splatter gone?
-
Where has the ground splatter gone?
@najak - where has it gone?
I shall answer as you are too afraid to. It was the dust from the visible parabola. When he jumped the first time he kicked soil forwards. The visible parabola isn't on his second jump.
So, have you the 100% integrity to confirm this?
You are still running away from this post which largely remains unanswered and what answers you have given are really poor.
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg58679#msg58679
-
Your timing was immaculate, thanks. This high resolution photo shows no "dust parabola" between the feet - here we see no dust at all, at apex.
Have you not studied this stuff? Can you find the wire that's supposedly suspending John Young? I can only find his aerial, which is shaped like a carpenter's metal measuring tape and, in this case, is reflecting the black lunar sky.
We can see very little dust in both photos because most of it is simply sunlit grey up in the vacuum against the same shade of sunlit grey in the background. What we most need to look for is light-coloured dust against darker background, or dark dust (either shaded or actually darker) against lighter background, and then, by comparing both photos, small amounts of it become visible.
Such as in the small bit of shade on the toes of Young's boots; against the shade of the lunar module to his right (our left); in the shade of the boot print from his right foot in the second photo, AS16-113-18340, which is almost obliterated by dust in 18339; in the shadow of Young's boot(s) on the ground.
Some of the dust has actually been caught in motion at a right angle to the camera's axis as the shutter went off, so is slightly streaked. In other cases it's frozen, or almost frozen. The little bit in AS16-113-18340 against the LM's shadow and surrounding some of the central fiducial (crosshair) might include tiny glass beads which seem to be reflecting circular greenish flares of the sunlight. On the other hand, those same formations might be a simple, rare, film or developing fault which I occasionally experienced back in the 1970s.
Here are the appropriate photo captions in plain text from the Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal Image Library. Go to the real thing for all the lovely links. I wonder if the red-blue anaglyphs might show more dust.
Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal Image Library
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a16/a16.html
AS16-113-18339 (OF300) (208k or 1300k)
120:25:42 John Young jumps off the ground and salutes for this superb tourist picture. He is off the ground about 1.45 seconds which, in the lunar gravity field, means that he launched himself at a velocity of about 1.17 m/s and reached a maximum height of 0.42 m. Although the suit and backpack weigh as much as he does, his total weight is only about 65 pounds (30 kg) and, to get this height, he only had to bend his knees slightly and then push up with his legs. In the background, we can see the UV astronomy camera, the flag, the LM, the Rover with the TV camera watching John, and Stone Mountain. Journal Contributor Joe Cannaday notes that high-point of John's first jump was at a time close to 120:25:49 and the second was almost exactly three seconds later.
AS16-113-18339/40 Stereo Images: red-blue anaglyph and a left-right image pair
These stereo images were created by Yuri Krasilnikov, who writes, "A bit of artistry was necessary to create credible stereo. In the left-right pair, Charlie captured John's first jump in 18339, which is on the right. In the original of 18340, we see that John isn't as far off the ground and is tilted to his left. In addition, there are footprints beneath him that he made when he landed after the first jump, a clear indication that John is closer to Charlie than he was in 18339. Creation of a credible anaglyph required removal of the image of John from 18340 and careful replacement with the image of John from 18339."
Yuri has also made a two-frame animation (1Mb) of John's jumps. John is more upright in 18339; and there are prominent footprints at his second launch point in 18340.
See, also, a red-blue anaglyph (1.9 Mb) created by Erik van Meihgaarden, who writes, "John did two jumping salutes for Charlie, who took a picture each time John was near the top of his jump. Consequently, we are seeing not only from two slightly different view points but, also, when he was at slightly different places. The TV recordings of these jumps show that John was on the LM side of the flag. Combination of images from the two different jumps creates the impression that John is on Charlie's side of the flag. John also looks like he's jumped more than the half meter he actually achieved. In comparison, because the flag wasn't touched or moved between the two jumps, our stereoview of it is completely legitimate.
AS16-113-18339-40 Red-Blue Anaglyph of the Flag, LRV, and LM (0.7Mb
Anaglyph by Yuri Krasilnikov.
AS16-113-18340 (OF300) (208k or 1300k)
120:25:42 John's second jump lasts about 1.30 seconds and, consequently, his launch velocity is about 1.05 m/s and his maximum height is 0.34 m.
-
....
Ah, missed that - these photos are two separate jumps. I thought it was another "fast firing Hasselblad" case.
When you see the photo with the noticeable dust above the boot - what is your conclusion?
I'm not seeing the other dust you are mentioning. Care snip the photo part and mark it?
Given how ray-tracing math works here -- If the dust appears above the boot - it must actually be a higher elevation than the boot - not just "in front of it"... this camera is ABOVE the boot, so if the dust is notably in front of the boot, then it must be EVEN HIGHER - because of how the camera-frustum ray tracing works. If it was the SAME height as boot, it would appear below it.
Since it's above, to me this looks "inconclusive" at best -- and at worst, it looks like he launched the dust off the top on his way up (about half way - watching the video).
For all the dust that rose with him -- I'm not seeing much of anything here, except for the dust he launched from the top of his boot on the way up...
This Navy Salute, doesn't look good for the Apollogists IMO.
The sidewards Jump example, so close up -- needs even worse.
-
Ah, missed that - these photos are two separate jumps.
You could have already learned that from post 151 where you were told twice, on the the very first line and in the excerpts from the journal where Eric Jones described each jump for your benefit.
When you see the photo with the noticeable dust above the boot - what is your conclusion?
Sigh. Which photo, which boot? Apollo is mostly all about precision and even extreme precision, so stop being so vague. But even once I know, I might not jump to any conclusion,
I'm not seeing the other dust you are mentioning. Care snip the photo part and mark it?
No, my time and abilities are severely limited by the terminal disease Oldfartitis. I downloaded the biggest photos, opened them side-by-side in separate screens of Irfanview, positioned them both identically, and looked at them at up to 315% magnification. Besides, you have already wasted my time, so I'm reluctant to do it if I could.
This Navy Salute, doesn't look good for the Apollogists IMO.
I don't know what you mean, but wonder if you know that the spacesuits had internal links and cables that helped most movements, but could inhibit others. You can read about that above in post 151 about what Young did with his right arm so he could salute.
The sidewards Jump example, so close up -- needs even worse.
You've completely lost me with that one. It's incomprehensible to me. Can anyone else understand it?
-
Where has the ground splatter gone?
@najak - where has it gone?
I shall answer as you are too afraid to. It was the dust from the visible parabola. When he jumped the first time he kicked soil forwards. The visible parabola isn't on his second jump.
So, have you the 100% integrity to confirm this?
This najak guy is acting the goat!
Where has the ground splatter gone? Your "100% integrity" claim appears to be more "100% evasion"
You are still running away from this post which largely remains unanswered and what answers you have given are really poor.
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg58679#msg58679
-
You've completely lost me with that one. It's incomprehensible to me. Can anyone else understand it?
This the side-jump -- close and clear. Don't have to inspect for tiny granules. It shows dust rising with the boot, but falling much faster than the astronaut.
What do you make of this?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JRjdohQ0cXftl_feaVeMT1rdYSlkS7mS/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JRjdohQ0cXftl_feaVeMT1rdYSlkS7mS/view?usp=drive_link)
-
This the side-jump -- close and clear. Don't have to inspect for tiny granules. It shows dust rising with the boot, but falling much faster than the astronaut.
What do you make of this?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JRjdohQ0cXftl_feaVeMT1rdYSlkS7mS/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JRjdohQ0cXftl_feaVeMT1rdYSlkS7mS/view?usp=drive_link)
I make out that you are a big coward. Where is the splatter? Answer my post properly, you've run away from most of it the whole thread.
The soil in your clip doesn't reach apex - if you think it does you are blind. Maybe the magic suction-cups weren't working.
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg58679#msg58679
-
You are still running away from this post which largely remains unanswered and what answers you have given are really poor.
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg58679#msg58679
All answered. You just don't like the answers. I'll summarize them again here:
#1. Fast Kicking the dust -- ever watch soccer? Ever witnessed a sudden muscle movement? I find this movement easily doable. The oddness of it makes it look to me like it was a pre-planned setup, to provide Apollogists with more defense. But that doesn't make a single double-speed flick motion Impossible.
#2. The Hippity example - shows NO DUST ON A PARABOLA, but the only dust we do see is scuttling along the ground... kicked forward, and it's momentum just carries it along. When sand hits the ground fast at a sidewards velocity - it tends to bounce and roll.
The fact that this "one spot of dark" shows up for 10 frames -- INDICATES that it was scuttling along the ground, and encountered a high spot -- which cause the first dust to collide -- and then the rest smashed into it... ALL IN THE SAME SPOT.
If it were coming from above, why would it all FALL IN THE SAME SPOT!!! ??? This was an isolated long-lived (10 frame) non-moving spot... This matches my hypothesis that it was the collision location for the dust scuttling along the ground....
There is NO GOOD HYPOTHESIS which explains your theory that it was an "airborne projectile with no added upward velocity -- but ONLY FORWARD velocity" -- and which all neatly landed at the exact same little spot - for 1/3rd of second straight. This is a Ludicrous theory. There is "chaos" when kicking the sand -- and doesn't result in all kicked particles starting with the same trajectory.
If were were on a legit physics forum - there would be others chiming in to tell you the same.
I'd be surprised if others here don't also see my point - but won't chime in to defend the MLH guy.
#3: John Young -- the photo with the "parabola" SHOWS Dust ABOVE THE BOOT -- coming forward... but ABOVE IT... this indicates a "different launch velocity" and/or a "different launch time".
While the dust that we can ALSO see, below the boot -- falls way faster than John Young.
==
I've concluded to ONLY talk about the side-jumping Astronaut because he avoids the potential lack-of-clarity/ambiguities in the other examples.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JRjdohQ0cXftl_feaVeMT1rdYSlkS7mS/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JRjdohQ0cXftl_feaVeMT1rdYSlkS7mS/view?usp=drive_link)
This one is the clearest, and shows Dust falling "too fast", with clarity. How do you reconcile this?
-
@LunarOrbit - since you are playing the Salem magistrate - holding me hostage to this thread forever and ever (or until I concede?).
Perhaps you can explain to me how my physics and physiology is factually flawed/wrong?
If we only have people debating something - and there is a unending disagreement -- what else is there to do?
You are forcing a situation that this thread cannot be ended until I concede.
-
@LunarOrbit - since you are playing the Salem magistrate - holding me hostage to this thread forever and ever (or until I concede?).
Perhaps you can explain to me how my physics and physiology is factually flawed/wrong?
If we only have people debating something - and there is a unending disagreement -- what else is there to do?
You are forcing a situation that this thread cannot be ended until I concede.
You are ignoring at least 75% of my post and your answers on the 25% are diversionary and meaningless.
-
All answered. You just don't like the answers.
They are bollocks,
#1. Fast Kicking the dust -- ever watch soccer? Ever witnessed a sudden muscle movement? I find this movement easily doable. The oddness of it makes it look to me like it was a pre-planned setup, to provide Apollogists with more defense. But that doesn't make a single double-speed flick motion Impossible.
It's called football and no, I've never seen a football player in a bloody spacesuit! The dust rises to a level that is not feasible on Earth.
#2. The Hippity example - shows NO DUST ON A PARABOLA
You are a liar.
(https://i.ibb.co/vkXZd4X/Apex.png)
but the only dust we do see is scuttling along the ground... kicked forward, and it's momentum just carries it along. When sand hits the ground fast at a sidewards velocity - it tends to bounce and roll.
It strikes the surface on 3 separate jumps on landing and you cowardly ignored that.
The fact that this "one spot of dark" shows up for 10 frames
Means nothing. It doesn't do it for the 2 jumps before.
INDICATES that it was scuttling along the ground, and encountered a high spot -- which cause the first dust to collide -- and then the rest smashed into it... ALL IN THE SAME SPOT.
It indicates you will come out with any old bollocks to avoid concession.
If it were coming from above, why would it all FALL IN THE SAME SPOT!!! ???
Three exclamation marks and 3 question marks, the power of hyperbole. It doesn't, that is the culmination.
This was an isolated long-lived (10 frame) non-moving spot... This matches my hypothesis that it was the collision location for the dust scuttling along the ground....
Just plain old lying. The two previous jumps have the same thing occurring and you didn't even answer this!
There is NO GOOD HYPOTHESIS which explains your theory that it was an "airborne projectile with no added upward velocity -- but ONLY FORWARD velocity" -- and which all neatly landed at the exact same little spot - for 1/3rd of second straight. This is a Ludicrous theory. There is "chaos" when kicking the sand -- and doesn't result in all kicked particles starting with the same trajectory.
Just more hyperbole. The impact occurs as he lands and the two preceding jumps.
If were were on a legit physics forum - there would be others chiming in to tell you the same.
Nope.
I'd be surprised if others here don't also see my point - but won't chime in to defend the MLH guy.
They see you getting your arse kicked and running at close to 0% integrity.
#3: John Young -- the photo with the "parabola" SHOWS Dust ABOVE THE BOOT
Diversion.
-- coming forward... but ABOVE IT... this indicates a "different launch velocity" and/or a "different launch time".
Ignoring the parabola in independent flight.
While the dust that we can ALSO see, below the boot -- falls way faster than John Young.
Repeating the lie, ignoring the rebuttal.
I've concluded to ONLY talk about the side-jumping Astronaut because he avoids the potential lack-of-clarity/ambiguities in the other examples.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JRjdohQ0cXftl_feaVeMT1rdYSlkS7mS/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JRjdohQ0cXftl_feaVeMT1rdYSlkS7mS/view?usp=drive_link)
This one is the clearest, and shows Dust falling "too fast", with clarity. How do you reconcile this?
The soil gets to about 75% apex. During the final 25% rise that 75% soil height is down double that.
More diversionary bollocks.
You are a complete waste of time. Your answers are complete evasion and you've only given crap answer to a few of them.
-
#1: ... that we notice.
What the hell? Confirming the point. There are no billowing clouds!
but if you check the footage, it's full of "white dots" that appear only for one frame -- the same as dust would produce. The "dust between the feet" is a small "billow of dust".
That is possibly the stupidest claim you've made and the competition is fierce.
#2: Nope-- @Mag40 is FORCING THIS.... I've said from the start - "this isn't the main point" - the main point is how fast the dust clouds fall. Dust really does fall a LOT faster than the astronaut, to remove the Apollogies made for the Young case.
That is correct, I am "forcing" this. You cited the jump and ignored everything that didn't fit and made conclusions that ignored conditions.
#3: Nope --- I'm making a deal that his footage may have been modified ("enhanced" they might say) to show dust between the feet, whereas on the NASA footage it's not evident at all.
Yet the video YOU supplied in post 1 shows the same parabola.
The main point for this dust is that we SEE CLEARLY from the onset that there is a thick cloud of dust ABOVE the boot bottom -- how do you think it got there? Does this tell you anything about the launch velocity of this dust? And how might this impact the predicted trajectory?
It tells me 2 things, that you are deliberately exaggerating it and on clearer footage looks mainly to be the toe of his left boot facing inwards before he jumps! I also see that the circle you make around it, is pretty much totally below his boot anyway!
The Young case has some potential ambiguity -- which is why I focus on the CLEAREST CASE -- of the astronaut doing it from the side, very close, with thick clouds of dust that rise with the foot, but fall to the ground WAY faster.
There is no ambiguity, just you blundering in with a claim and running away from numerous points that don't fit with your immovable position.
Now it looks like I need to ask you to stop acting like the bog-standard HB you claimed not to be and start showing this illusive "100% integrity"!
1. Here is an animated gif, taken from YOUR video in the opening post. It is clear beyond any doubt that the footage you snidely claimed was doctored has not been because the same clear parabola rises (nowhere near the soles of his boots!) to the same height and obviously at the same time.
Explain why you ignored this and reasserted your claim point #3 above?
(https://i.ibb.co/M9k4Hfk/Apollo-16-big-navy-jump-salute-with-timer.gif)
2. Your useless "physics" about "suction-cups" and the attractive force "adhesion" are not even close to accurate or relevant for this scenario. The forum can see you squirming on this with no honest intent to answer with any integrity.
Time up = time down - we see time up very clearly, explain why you keep evading this obvious evidence?
(https://i.ibb.co/qrjRGpk/Jump.gif)
3. In that gif, there is a shadow of dust moving forwards on the left and when he is descending there is slight ground discolouration as the dust settles - it moves forwards as a wave.
Does your "100% integrity allow you to even answer this(!) let alone admit it?
4. Both my volleyball gifs showed on very clear modern video that sand can appear to disperse very fast. It is merely hard to see sand on sand. For Apollo, not only is the footage far more grainier and lower quality it;s darker with grey against grey.
Explain why you have not honestly acknowledged this, preferring to find instances where conditions are more favourable also on modern clear footage?
5. The following Gene Cernan gif was presented to and ignored. It shows that the same soil impact occurs at landing on 3 jumps.
Why have you ignored this? Please don't insult everyone with some bollocks about coincidence.
(https://i.ibb.co/xGgLfbR/9cl5k8.gif)
6. For the last of the 3 Cernan jumps, we clearly see the dust coming down in a wave as the final impact occurs. Your explanation for this was crap about how long the ground mark occurred for. Irrelevant given the nature of the camera and discolouration of the soil. Here's better footage and clearer footage below.
How is this clearly not very solid proof the soil ISN'T too falling too fast?
(https://i.ibb.co/bL5GhcF/9d1xgl.gif)
7. This last one is concerns very much your "100% integrity". I don't know if you've ever seen somebody kick dirt around but a little sideways flick of the boot, on Earth, simply does not do what we are seeing. The dust-flick from the side of his boot (adjusted for Earth speed) is an absurd >7m per second force and rising to 1.25m high. In addition to your hand waving you also suggested without evidence that the footage was speed adjusted around the event. Very irrelevant given that this is absurdly unreal for Earth freefall and action.
Explain to the forum how you can possibly suggest does this on Earth, that height, distance and speed? In addition, notice how the astronauts are exhibiting comedic motion when adjusted.
Lunar footage:
(https://i.ibb.co/PFMzmYx/9cl91y.gif)
Adjusted +245% for Earth speed:
(https://i.ibb.co/LvbkCWK/9cl9mj.gif)
I have marked in blue the points that you have sidestepped! The other ones you have just given stupid answers to or obfuscated.
-
I'll address each, a final time:
#1: Explain why you ignored this and reasserted your claim point #3 above?
Answer: This footage shows sand falling faster than John. If you insist there is a "parabola of scant dust" - we have the hi-rez photo that explains this - we CLEARLY see that "at apex" there is a considerable amount of dust well-above the boot's TOP... So this "parabola" that you love, would be explained by this dust - which CLEARLY either launched FASTER from the start, or launched off the top of the boot half-way up.
There is also VERY CLEAR evidence that when he's just 6 inches off the ground, a small mass of dust is ABOVE the bottom of his boot (to the right) which is a CLEAR INDICATOR of a FASTER launch speed.
The only conclusion we can collectively draw here is that "at best" this example has some ambiguity. At "worst" it shows that dust which rises alongside the foot - FALLS FASTER. My claim is stronger than yours. But I'm OK with simply backing off on my claim here, because of the ambiguities/obscurities involved.
===
#2: Time up = time down - we see time up very clearly, explain why you keep evading this obvious evidence?
Answer: This rule only applies to simple projectile motion where there is nothing influencing the rise/fall "during flight". Also, if you launch something faster, it'll stay in the air longer (it's a function of launch velocity). So this Parabola that you love, peaks higher than the boot bottom -- so again, was the result of a different Launch velocity. It's faint, rises to a different height, and shows evidence at launch of there being a "faster moving" cluster of dust from the onset.
Recognize the ambiguity here. Find some people who are good at physics to agree with you; just see if you can. (Not that this would be proof, but your inability to do so, would be telling.)
===
#3: Does your "100% integrity allow you to even answer this(!) let alone admit it?
Answer: See above. IF this GIF (showing something that doesn't appear on NASA's own link) is legit, i.e. there is a faint mist of dust between the boots and HIGHER than the bottoms - there are a few viable scientifically sound explanations for this. See above.
===
#4: Explain why you have not honestly acknowledged this, preferring to find instances where conditions are more favourable also on modern clear footage?
Answer: Your volleyball examples had THREE critical deficiencies. (1) They were far away, (2) he was jumping sideways (causes more dispersing), and (3) whatever effect is needed to Pull the Sand up to the HEIGHT OF THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOT -- was ABSENT. Just as Young's other jump had little to no dust rise - -not much to see.
If your example were closer, and showed thick mass of dust rising up to the bottom of their feet - then you'd have a viable comparison.
I gave a PERTINENT volleyball example - which satisfies ALL 3 of these requirements, and we clearly see the sand falling at the SAME speed as the man.
===
#5: Why have you ignored this? Please don't insult everyone with some bollocks about coincidence.
Answer: For Hippity example, there is a lot of chaos for each jump. When you kick up dust, it's not just "one steady stream of particles all with the same launch angle and speed". The fact that the closest example shows evidence of a "along-the-ground high point collision" - indicates that "this concept is at play here". You cannot discount it. Therefore there is enough ambiguity and missing clarity for us to make solid conclusions.
Yet here again, we do see the Dust that rises beneath his feet very clearly, disappears. The only sand that keeps moving was "kicked" at a high velocity than Cernan... and SOME OF IT with an extra upward launch velocity.
Since it's too far away, I'm not making a point about the "dust beneath his feet falling too fast" as proof.
===
#6: How is this clearly not very solid proof the soil ISN'T too falling too fast?
Answer: See above. Loose/dry sand at a high horizontal/parallel velocity, will bounce, roll, and scuttle -- until it hits a high point, or the velocity dissipates. SOME of this sand could be coming in from above -- but we have NO TRAJECTORY VISIBLE -- so we cannot measure it's "parabola" at all -- if it was launched upwards faster than he's jumping himself -- the timing will be extended.
Learn this.
===
#7: Explain to the forum how you can possibly suggest does this on Earth, that height, distance and speed? In addition, notice how the astronauts are exhibiting comedic motion when adjusted.
Answer: Watch the sharp/dramatic inflection in his backpack -- 10 degrees? This is a sign of counter balancing this leg motion. It is not "superhuman" for him to be able to conduct this maneuver, especially if this spacesuit is a facade (not the 100 lb real deal)... If you can't prove this to be a "super-human foot maneuver" this PROVES nothing. In MLH theory, this was a deliberate event, inserted for Apollogists -- and he was coached to "kick it as hard as you can, while trying to make it look effortless" -- and he only partially succeeded... his 10 degree torso flinch, shows sign of stress here.
====
All are answered. QED. Thread complete.
-
As Young jumps, the toe of his boot launches regolith upwards. Some if it is launched higher than others, because physics. Impart the same energy to objects of different mass and they respond on a way relative to that mass.
Everything else is pure conjecture on your part, based on a biased interpretation of poor quality TV footage.
Put the footage in its proper context: hours long EVA broadcast featuring multiple occasions where the astronauts cross paths and do other things that would make any kind of harness impossible. Lunar regolith is repeatedly shown to behave in a manner entirely consistent with an air less low gravity environment, and there's the added bonus of a completely accurate view of Earth.
Oh, and astronaut movement looking funny when you speed up the footage isn't the win you think it is.
-
I'll address each, a final time:
That well may be true but it's still obfuscation and evasion!
#1: Explain why you ignored this and reasserted your claim point #3 above?
Answer: This footage shows sand falling faster than John. If you insist there is a "parabola of scant dust" - we have the hi-rez photo that explains this - we CLEARLY see that "at apex" there is a considerable amount of dust well-above the boot's TOP... So this "parabola" that you love, would be explained by this dust - which CLEARLY either launched FASTER from the start, or launched off the top of the boot half-way up. There is also VERY CLEAR evidence that when he's just 6 inches off the ground, a small mass of dust is ABOVE the bottom of his boot (to the right) which is a CLEAR INDICATOR of a FASTER launch speed. The only conclusion we can collectively draw here is that "at best" this example has some ambiguity. At "worst" it shows that dust which rises alongside the foot - FALLS FASTER. My claim is stronger than yours. But I'm OK with simply backing off on my claim here, because of the ambiguities/obscurities involved.
You have given an answer that doesn't address the actual question! You accused me of supplying doctored footage and said it was not in NASA's version. A lie.
1. Here is an animated gif, taken from YOUR video in the opening post. It is clear beyond any doubt that the footage you snidely claimed was doctored has not been because the same clear parabola rises (nowhere near the soles of his boots!) to the same height and obviously at the same time.
Explain why you ignored this and reasserted your claim point #3 above?
#2: Time up = time down - we see time up very clearly, explain why you keep evading this obvious evidence?
Answer: This rule only applies to simple projectile motion where there is nothing influencing the rise/fall "during flight".
Luckily that is exactly what we are seeing. A clear parabolic arc in free flight rising in perfect sync.
Also, if you launch something faster, it'll stay in the air longer (it's a function of launch velocity). So this Parabola that you love, peaks higher than the boot bottom -- so again, was the result of a different Launch velocity. It's faint, rises to a different height, and shows evidence at launch of there being a "faster moving" cluster of dust from the onset.
Oh, I see what you did there. You took the tiny bit at the top of an inch or two and used that to discount the whole thing. Physics doesn't work like that. It's more than close enough in sync and height and your response is deliberate obfuscation. You know fully well what the implication for this is.
#3: Does your "100% integrity allow you to even answer this(!) let alone admit it?
Answer: See above. IF this GIF (showing something that doesn't appear on NASA's own link) is legit, i.e.
And another lie as you avoided question 1 completely!
there is a faint mist of dust between the boots and HIGHER than the bottoms - there are a few viable scientifically sound explanations for this. See above.
Your scant inaccurate attention to the bloody questions is getting kind of irritating. Nothing in that "answer" is relevant to the question:
3. In that gif, there is a shadow of dust moving forwards on the left and when he is descending there is slight ground discolouration as the dust settles - it moves forwards as a wave.
Does your "100% integrity allow you to even answer this(!) let alone admit it?
#4: Explain why you have not honestly acknowledged this, preferring to find instances where conditions are more favourable also on modern clear footage?
Answer: Your volleyball examples had THREE critical deficiencies. (1) They were far away, (2) he was jumping sideways (causes more dispersing), and (3) whatever effect is needed to Pull the Sand up to the HEIGHT OF THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOT -- was ABSENT. Just as Young's other jump had little to no dust rise - -not much to see.
Just evasion again. My examples showed a similar distance to Young and the same dispersal and difficulty of surface material against surface material. You don't even mention video quality! The only major rise of dust on Young's jump was the parabola. The rest as you keep avoiding, tracks forwards with shadow and surface discolouration. Due to the nature of the volleyball quality, an honest person could enlarge it maybe 3 or 4 times and it would still be better than the lunar quality video, rendering your obfuscation about its distance moot!
If your example were closer, and showed thick mass of dust rising up to the bottom of their feet - then you'd have a viable comparison.
Your integrity has not increased at all:
(https://i.ibb.co/hfDCpk4/Jump1-sandfallsquickly-ezgif-com-resize.gif)
I gave a PERTINENT volleyball example - which satisfies ALL 3 of these requirements, and we clearly see the sand falling at the SAME speed as the man.
No you didn't. Yours was sideways on. Sand was wetter underneath.
#5: Why have you ignored this? Please don't insult everyone with some bollocks about coincidence.
Answer: For Hippity example, there is a lot of chaos for each jump. When you kick up dust, it's not just "one steady stream of particles all with the same launch angle and speed". The fact that the closest example shows evidence of a "along-the-ground high point collision" - indicates that "this concept is at play here". You cannot discount it. Therefore there is enough ambiguity and missing clarity for us to make solid conclusions. Yet here again, we do see the Dust that rises beneath his feet very clearly, disappears. The only sand that keeps moving was "kicked" at a high velocity than Cernan... and SOME OF IT with an extra upward launch velocity.
You really need to start answering the bloody question given! Nowhere did you address the question:
5. The following Gene Cernan gif was presented to and ignored. It shows that the same soil impact occurs at landing on 3 jumps.
Why have you ignored this? Please don't insult everyone with some bollocks about coincidence.
#6: How is this clearly not very solid proof the soil ISN'T too falling too fast?
Answer: See above. Loose/dry sand at a high horizontal/parallel velocity, will bounce, roll, and scuttle -- until it hits a high point, or the velocity dissipates. SOME of this sand could be coming in from above -- but we have NO TRAJECTORY VISIBLE -- so we cannot measure it's "parabola" at all -- if it was launched upwards faster than he's jumping himself -- the timing will be extended.
You are certainly not answering this honestly. There is clearly visible regolith coming down as he descends. If you need to lie to make your case you really need to work on that "100% integrity"
(https://i.ibb.co/bBN2W5n/ezgif-4-bf2a5dc2a2.gif)
ARE YOU SERIOUSLY CLAIMING THERE IS NO DESCENDING DUST WAVE ENDING WITH THE VISIBLE SPLASH AS HE LANDS!
#7: Explain to the forum how you can possibly suggest does this on Earth, that height, distance and speed? In addition, notice how the astronauts are exhibiting comedic motion when adjusted.
Answer: Watch the sharp/dramatic inflection in his backpack -- 10 degrees? This is a sign of counter balancing this leg motion. It is not "superhuman" for him to be able to conduct this maneuver, especially if this spacesuit is a facade (not the 100 lb real deal)... If you can't prove this to be a "super-human foot maneuver" this PROVES nothing. In MLH theory, this was a deliberate event, inserted for Apollogists -- and he was coached to "kick it as hard as you can, while trying to make it look effortless" -- and he only partially succeeded... his 10 degree torso flinch, shows sign of stress here.
Your whole answer is clear proof that you will jump through endless hoops to maintain your claim. Nobody with integrity looks at that activity and sees anything that you could do on Earth. This was part of an unbroken long sequence of footage and he manages to do that, for that height? What a waste of time you are being!
All are answered.
Not even close.
Thread complete.
Nope.
-
#1: As Young jumps, the toe of his boot launches regolith upwards. Some if it is launched higher than others, because physics. Impart the same energy to objects of different mass and they respond on a way relative to that mass.
#2: Everything else is pure conjecture on your part, based on a biased interpretation of poor quality TV footage.
#3: Put the footage in its proper context: hours long EVA broadcast featuring multiple occasions where the astronauts cross paths and do other things that would make any kind of harness impossible. Lunar regolith is repeatedly shown to behave in a manner entirely consistent with an air less low gravity environment, and there's the added bonus of a completely accurate view of Earth.
#4: Oh, and astronaut movement looking funny when you speed up the footage isn't the win you think it is.
#1: Correct. It's messy and ambiguous. The faint dust mist that Mag40 loves, is ambiguous/unclear.
#2: I don't think the Side-Jumping Astronaut is "Conjecture"... This is MY FOCUS, because it's the one is closest-up and doesn't have dust being flung chaotically. Almost all dust involved here, rises beneath the foot, mostly upwards. What do you think of this one?
#3: "Crossing paths" - perhaps you should make a thread on this, and present what you believe are the "best cases" that present something "non-feasible to fake".
#4: This isn't a "win" other than the claim that "this unnatural looking movement is non-feasible to have been done on purpose" (so that when it was slowed down, it wouldn't look too slow motion).
-
Nope.
#1: Your GIF emphasizes something. On the NASA link I do not see it. Faint pixelation makes this hard to discern. So for sake of argument I GRANTED you the "dust between the feet"... but there are two good explanations for it -- both given.
a. The dust rising faster than the boot from the launch... it was about 50% ahead of the boot.
b. Kicked dust "forward" was ABOVE THE BOOT (shown in the photo) - so clearly this could have been your parabola.
#3: The entire John Young video is plagued with ambiguity -- PROVEN by the photo which clearly shows dust ABOVE the boot at apex.... therefore we are NOT dealing with "two objects both launched at the same time" or "falling from the same distance". The ONLY dust you can meaningfully measure here is the dust BELOW the bottom of the boot that never rises above the boot. If this dust falls faster than the astronaut, then "Houston we've got a problem." Once there is dust ABOVE IT -- which is faint and dissipated - we have nothing to go on.
#5: In all three Cernan jumps, the dust is landing many feet in front of him -- therefore there is "flinging/kicking" action. The chaos, and the far distance makes this ambiguous. If you throw sand sideways along the ground, it will scuttle... it's doesn't stop instantly. The fact that for 10 frames it all shows up in ONE NON-MOVING DOT -- indicates the "scuttle" action. All 3 hops are similar in nature.... all potentially with the same scuttle effect... this should be expected.
===
Why do you keep avoiding the ONE EXAMPLE we have that is most clear? the side-leap.
Check it out and comment:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JRjdohQ0cXftl_feaVeMT1rdYSlkS7mS/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JRjdohQ0cXftl_feaVeMT1rdYSlkS7mS/view?usp=drive_link)
-
@Mag40 - your video of the Hippity -- SHOWS the dust falling FASTER than Cernan!
The fact that it doesn't fully stop it's horizontal motion, is expected. It rises with his boot... to the boot level... then FALLS FASTER!!... then scuttles along the ground until it hits a high spot.
This dust STARTED at the same level -- then FALLS TO THE GROUND _- it's right in front of your eyes.
Since it's far away... I've agreed to ignore these. But if you insist on using them - you MUST see the dust at boot level falling faster than Cernan. It is blatant.
In this image - we can see that ALL DUST that USED TO BE LEVEL WITH THE BOOT, is not down at ground level, scuttling along.
-
@Mag40 - your video of the Hippity -- SHOWS the dust falling FASTER than Cernan!
The fact that it doesn't fully stop it's horizontal motion, is expected. It rises with his boot... to the boot level... then FALLS FASTER!!... then scuttles along the ground until it hits a high spot.
This dust STARTED at the same level -- then FALLS TO THE GROUND _- it's right in front of your eyes.
Since it's far away... I've agreed to ignore these. But if you insist on using them - you MUST see the dust at boot level falling faster than Cernan. It is blatant.
This is just denial and a demonstration (not that any were needed) that nothing you can say to this guy will make any difference.
Ok fellow members, tell me I'm wrong and I'll just shut up.
This is Cernan carrying a wave of dust to the same height as his boot. Obviously lower parts of the wave fall quicker.
I can see the wave rising and falling all the way to the ground in sync with his jump:
(https://i.ibb.co/bBN2W5n/ezgif-4-bf2a5dc2a2.gif)
ARE YOU SERIOUSLY CLAIMING THERE IS NO DESCENDING DUST WAVE ENDING WITH THE VISIBLE SPLASH AS HE LANDS!
-
@Mag40 - your video of the Hippity -- SHOWS the dust falling FASTER than Cernan!
The fact that it doesn't fully stop it's horizontal motion, is expected. It rises with his boot... to the boot level... then FALLS FASTER!!... then scuttles along the ground until it hits a high spot.
No, you are simply dead wrong on this. I can see clearly what Mag40 points out.
-
@Mag40 - your video of the Hippity -- SHOWS the dust falling FASTER than Cernan!
The fact that it doesn't fully stop it's horizontal motion, is expected. It rises with his boot... to the boot level... then FALLS FASTER!!... then scuttles along the ground until it hits a high spot.
No, you are simply dead wrong on this. I can see clearly what Mag40 points out.
Great - take an image snapshot mid-way - where the dust is all on the ground, while the astronaut is still at apex - and show me how this dust is also "still at apex".. If Cernan is still at apex, but the dust is not -- then the dust has fallen down FASTER than Cernan.
Please show me how the dust remained at apex along with Cernan.
Also - if it were following the path declared by Mag40, and falling to the ground at the same time (even though we see NONE of this suspended dust at apex).... it would NOT ALL FALL IN THE SAME EXACT SPOT FOR 1/3rd of a second!!... it would be chaotic. HOWEVER, if instead the dust is scuttling across the ground (which it clearly is ) -- then it will all collide at the SAME SINGLE NON-MOVING POINT _- which is WHAT WE SEE. This is ONLY explainable via "scuttling dust"... NOT AT ALL via "airborne dust following the same parabola as Cernan"... And especially not for 1/3rd of a second...
Do you picture some perfect stream of dust all aligned all traveling the same path -- but with a 1/3rd second span??
-
Why do you keep avoiding the ONE EXAMPLE we have that is most clear? the side-leap.
It is by far not the 'most clear' example, because of the image quality and the shadow obscuring good visuals.
-
Great - take an image snapshot mid-way - where the dust is all on the ground, while the astronaut is still at apex - and show me how this dust is also "still at apex".. If Cernan is still at apex, but the dust is not -- then the dust has fallen down FASTER than Cernan.
This guy is a bloody comedian - already posted!
(https://i.ibb.co/vkXZd4X/Apex.png)
You're done fella! As I have said I am not even close to being one of the resident experts and all on my own I have kicked your arse and disproven your thread. Your replies are exercises in how to evade, obfuscate and deny!
Post 180 showing how your answers are avoiding the actual question and/or making obviously biased and poor responses.
-
This guy is a bloody comedian - already posted!
(https://i.ibb.co/vkXZd4X/Apex.png)
Now look at this 0.1 of a second later- the dust is all on the ground, while Cernan is still at his apex.
LunarOrbit has sentenced me to unending debates with someone who doesn't understand physics.
He might as well put me in a room with a 3 year old and tell me to debate Santa Claus until I concede that Santa is real.
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2019.0;attach=1276)
-
Great - take an image snapshot mid-way - where the dust is all on the ground, while the astronaut is still at apex - and show me how this dust is also "still at apex".. If Cernan is still at apex, but the dust is not -- then the dust has fallen down FASTER than Cernan.
Please show me how the dust remained at apex along with Cernan.
Most of the dust didn't reach the apex Cernan reached.
But tell me, from the 4.5 hours EVA 2 this is the best thing you can come up with?
-
It is by far not the 'most clear' example, because of the image quality and the shadow obscuring good visuals.
True that the shadows occlude, but intermixed there are two specific consecutive frames that are most revealing... Frame 13 and 14.
In 13, the dust has a brownish tint, which goes all the way up to the heel of his boot, and about 40% of the way down, is more dust.
Frame 14 is more telling -- all of the dust from previous frame has fallen below that background leg shadow... This is just ONE FRAME difference.
After Frame 14 all we see is the "dust clouds at ground level" for a few more frames.
So in order for this dust to fall so fast in 14, it must have already been on it's way down... which indicates that the prior frames 10-11 have dust that is ABOVE THIS (and yes, it's too occluded by shadows).
But if the dust in frame 13 we are "apex" it wouldn't be falling so immediately (as acceleration takes time)... so it must have already been moving at a fast pace so that in Frame 14, it's moved a long distance down.
I wish the shadow weren't in the background, so that we wouldn't have to "Extrapolate the trajectory backwards" from Frame 14 to 13 to 12 and 11. But the motion from 13 to 14 -- demonstrates fast dropping before it reached frame 13 -- therefore in 11 and 12 - it MUST have been higher.
====
Although this proof is truly clear... the fact that it requires extrapolation, makes it harder to prove to someone who is biased against the implications of said proof.
Of the 4 proofs I've made -- this sand one is my least favorite, for these reasons (not because I don't see the proof, but because it's the hardest to prove to anyone without a stronger sense of math/physics, which is the vast majority of people -- who else uses Physics in daily life?? Not many.)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JRjdohQ0cXftl_feaVeMT1rdYSlkS7mS/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JRjdohQ0cXftl_feaVeMT1rdYSlkS7mS/view?usp=drive_link)
-
In 13, the dust has a brownish tint, which goes all the way up to the heel of his boot, and about 40% of the way down, is more dust.
No it doesn't go all the way up to his heel, that is much more likely shadow.
Frame 14 is more telling -- all of the dust from previous frame has fallen below that background leg shadow... This is just ONE FRAME difference.
No it is not, it is unclear what is shadow and what is dust. What you call dust seem much more the shadow of his left foot on his right foot.
-
...
Curious, because in the footage I have (A17V.1465003.MPG), I can clearly see Cernan, and to a lesser degree Schmitt, kicking up the dust which moves in front of them, and hitting the surface at about the same time they do, especially in Cernan's 'hippity hops', where the dust is landing just after Cernan, showing that he's moving down hill, as the dust is a head of him (lining up with the photos of the area).
-
#1: No it doesn't go all the way up to his heel, that is much more likely shadow.
#2: No it is not, it is unclear what is shadow and what is dust. What you call dust seem much more the shadow of his left foot on his right foot.
Shadow is black - no light. No color. The dust is brownish. There is clear brownish particles beneath the heel which are NOT shadow. The shadow edge is SHARP and STABLE -- so when there is coloration that is not directly in front of the shadow, you can see it. The shadow itself cannot make this "brownish color" nor color that is not directly in front of the shadow.. we have BOTH.
There's too much "filled in pixels" which are NOT in front of the shadow to ignore them.
From just these two frames we see a WHOLE BUNCH of brownish pixels over and around the shadows. One frame later -- all gone - except for below the shadows.
Have you downloaded the MP4, paused, it and manually dragged the frames? It's hard to deny that there's a LOT of dust here, because of the coloration and the sheer volume that is not explained by the thinner/sharp sharp shadows.
Try it this that way.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JRjdohQ0cXftl_feaVeMT1rdYSlkS7mS/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JRjdohQ0cXftl_feaVeMT1rdYSlkS7mS/view?usp=drive_link)
-
Curious, because in the footage I have (A17V.1465003.MPG), I can clearly see Cernan, and to a lesser degree Schmitt, kicking up the dust which moves in front of them, and hitting the surface at about the same time they do, especially in Cernan's 'hippity hops', where the dust is landing just after Cernan, showing that he's moving down hill, as the dust is a head of him (lining up with the photos of the area).
Yet, we do not see the "airborne dust", but only a shadow at ground level, indicating disturbances as the dust scuttles.
If it were airborne, it wouldn't all fall at the same exact point for 1/3rd of a second.... However, scuttling sand is far more likely to behave like this.... all hitting the same "slightly high point".
I'm OK with mostly dropping this "Sand falls to fast" issue, and putting it at the bottom of my list -- mostly because it's the most ambiguous and leaves too much room for people to "see what they WANT to see" -- similar to saying "what do you see in those clouds?"
The chaos of dust, seems to work in a similar fashion here. This is not a good point to linger on.
Compare this to other 3 points - where we are talking about a very well defined singular object (e.g. the flag, the AM, the A12 Dish)... so will stick with those.
To me the sand falling too fast seems painfully obvious, and cannot see at all how someone could miss it. You seem to feel the same, but with an opposite conclusion.
So I'll just (mostly) drop this specific point for that reason. I won't call it "undebunkable evidence" as I do for the other 3.
-
Shadow is black - no light. No color. The dust is brownish. There is clear brownish particles beneath the heel which are NOT shadow. The shadow edge is SHARP and STABLE -- so when there is coloration that is not directly in front of the shadow, you can see it. The shadow itself cannot make this "brownish color" nor color that is not directly in front of the shadow.. we have BOTH.
No it is not, right beneath the heel the shadow is much more towards the blue. Only when you're well below the heel it becomes a bit more brownish.
Have you downloaded the MP4, paused, it and manually dragged the frames? It's hard to deny that there's a LOT of dust here, because of the coloration and the sheer volume that is not explained by the thinner/sharp sharp shadows.
No I'm looking at this video:
Again there is a lot of mix up between shadow, dust and also video compression which doesn't help at all.
But how did he kick the send meters away just seconds before all this? Can you show an example of this on earth?
-
This subject has shown how an HB will avoid things and obfuscate responses. Post 180 answer it properly!
Your denial of the Cernan dust wave us just blatant denial if the visible evidence.
-
#1: Again there is a lot of mix up between shadow, dust and also video compression which doesn't help at all.
#2: But how did he kick the send meters away just seconds before all this? Can you show an example of this on earth?
#1: Gonna drop this whole point as "too ambiguous/chaotic to make a solid/clear proof". Time to move on.
#2: I downloaded this video from NASA and just played at 2x speed, and it looks pretty good, even when he kicks that dust 2 meters... looks right at 2X... even his motions.
What I find funny is that he can't just bend down to get his hammer -- he has to JUMP first and grab it fast... why??? This is unnatural. Maybe it's because in this context the cable is pulling him up to hard that he has to jump so that the force downward will give him enough momentum to reach the hammer....
Seriously - why is he making such a very awkward deal about bending down to get his hammer...??? This makes no sense to me.
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1464821.mpg (https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1464821.mpg)
-
But how did he kick the send meters away just seconds before all this? Can you show an example of this on earth?
WOW, seriously thank you for getting me to rewatch this.. This looks to me as very compelling MLH evidence, all BEFORE his leap.
Watch 1:45 to 3:15 -- it takes him HALF-DOZEN jump tries to get the thing on the ground! He fails so has to go get some pole to help him get it!
How does an Apollogist reconcile this very peculiar behavior??
MLH explains it very easily -- the cable was pulling up too much, to make bending down not possible... Why does he JUMP HIGH FIRST in order to bend his knee to the ground????
Why doesn't he simply "kneel down"??? It's clear he has to PULL DOWN on something that is holding him up.
Gonna love hearing these responses... THIS one deserves it's own thread.
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1464821.mpg (https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1464821.mpg)
-
What I find funny is that he can't just bend down to get his hammer -- he has to JUMP first and grab it fast... why??? This is unnatural.
Maybe because he's in a spacesuit that limits his movements, in 1/6th G, with a massive backpack on his back. He's in a rather un-natural situation. Perhaps more significantly, a situation you have never experienced so are not in a position to say what is natural or not in the ways people have of navigating it.
Maybe it's because in this context the cable is pulling him up to hard that he has to jump so that the force downward will give him enough momentum to reach the hammer....
Ah, the 'they're in a studio with cables' argument. Another bingo tick, thanks. Boring. Find this magic studio that is able to survive being depressurised (yes, there is plenty of evidence of vacuum in the footage) and yet big enough to show all this stuff going on.
Unlike you, najak, I have actually seen ALL of the Apollo TV footage, not just a few short clips here and there. There is not one argument from a hoax believer on how it was made that actually explains everything seen in the material. you know what does? Being on the Moon in a vacuum and 1/6th G.
-
Maybe because he's in a spacesuit that limits his movements, in 1/6th G, with a massive backpack on his back. He's in a rather un-natural situation. Perhaps more significantly, a situation you have never experienced so are not in a position to say what is natural or not in the ways people have of navigating it.
In other contexts, they bend down just fine, many many times. This particular scene was one where the "lift" amount was higher than normal. Otherwise he could have bent down the same as all the rest of the times they bent down.
The difference? The amount of "lift" applied to the cable varies per scene, and plan. This one was specifically more than others.
How can you justify that "his suit didn't allow it"? When you've seen ALL of the other footage, and know that bending down is no problem. Done many times, and it doesn't look like this... not even close.
Apollo is a religion.
-
#2: I downloaded this video from NASA and just played at 2x speed, and it looks pretty good, even when he kicks that dust 2 meters... looks right at 2X... even his motions.
It travels way more then 2 meters, but again, show me how this is done on earth.
Seriously - why is he making such a very awkward deal about bending down to get his hammer...??? This makes no sense to me.
Something about pressurized suits maybe?
-
It travels way more then 2 meters, but again, show me how this is done on earth.
Play it at 2X speed, and looks like natural earth movement. This is how it would look on earth. Some of this motion is "scuttling" -- that's how dust/sand works... it bounces and rolls a bit. So that is part of this distance you see. If the "human movements at 2x speed look fine" then there are no claims you can make for "how would you do this on earth?" (answer: exactly like it looks when you play this moon clip at 2x speed)
-
Play it at 2X speed, and looks like natural earth movement.
No it doesn't
Again show somebody kicking dust so far away on the earth.
-
Seriously - why is he making such a very awkward deal about bending down to get his hammer...??? This makes no sense to me.
Something about pressurized suits maybe?
He says nothing about pressurized suit. And MANY MANY MANY times, astronauts bend down. Many look funny when they do, but they can still do it easily enough.
But in this particular instance HE CANNOT. 1.5 minute fiasco to pick up something on the ground.
And now ask "why would they leave such gaping mistakes on video??"
Answer: Because Apollo operates like a religion... All they had to do was make sure it was something people "really wanted to believe" - the rest is easy peasy.
This specific instance might just be the home-run of "awkward astronaut movements", of which there are many.
-
Play it at 2X speed, and looks like natural earth movement.
No it doesn't. Again show somebody kicking dust so far away on the earth.
Here it is at 2X speed, which looks much like earth activity. If you think the dust is going to far in this video - then it's also going to far for the moon, at 1/2 this speed. So maybe, then, it's best explained by a slight wind, pushing it along. It does seem to coast more than you'd expect for a no-atmosphere moon.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19QMynQO8ce4bCtAyM0Io3k7NHvh2dVLQ/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/19QMynQO8ce4bCtAyM0Io3k7NHvh2dVLQ/view?usp=drive_link)
-
He says nothing about pressurized suit. And MANY MANY MANY times, astronauts bend down. Many look funny when they do, but they can still do it easily enough.
But in this particular instance HE CANNOT. 1.5 minute fiasco to pick up something on the ground.
Yes because Charlie Duke was bad at it...
[Jones - "A couple of months ago, John told me that he had done some work in the airplane seeing if he could get down to one knee. Do you remember that?"]
[Duke - "Yeah. Uh-huh. And he was good at it. He would jump up and then sort of do a split and then he hit and the momentum would carry him down and he could grab a rock and then, once he got down, the suit tension would pop him back up. He was very good at it. I tried it a couple of times and I wasn't very good at it, so I stopped. I'd looked at it...I could do it in the airplane but, up on the lunar surface, it just seemed like I was always off balance. You know, I'd try to grab and I'd miss it, or I'd grab and it wouldn't come right and it would spin me one direction or the other and I'd end up falling down. So I didn't do much of it; but he did."]
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a16/a16.lrvdep.html#1192437
And now ask "why would they leave such gaping mistakes on video??"
Yes and you don't have an answer for it; all is your mumbling hindsight about religion. All this information doesn't sync up with the rest of your religion story you try to keep up with.
-
Here it is at 2X speed, which looks much like earth activity.
No it doesn't at all.
Why do you have such a hard time to show something similar on earth?
-
In other contexts, they bend down just fine, many many times.
Yes, and in plenty of others they didn't. There are several other examples of them hopping about, jumping into 'odd' positions, and generally doing anything but just bending down to get something off the ground.
The amount of "lift" applied to the cable varies per scene, and plan. This one was specifically more than others.
First, there is no evidence of a cable. Second, if it was a cable why would the amount of 'lift' vary? That makes no sense from a practical point of view. Once again, this footage is half a century old. Do you think you're the first person to make this suggestion?
How can you justify that "his suit didn't allow it"?
You need to understand what quotation marks actually mean. You use them when you are reproducing words exactly as spoken. I did not say his suit did not allow it, so you are effectively attributing words to me that I did not say. Don't.
What I said was that his suit and the environment makes 'unnatural' movements expected.
-
If you think the dust is going to far in this video - then it's also going to far for the moon, at 1/2 this speed.
No, that's a non-sequitur. For any given projectile, such as a regolith particle kicked up by a boot, on Earth its distance is affected by gravity and air resistance. Lower the former and remove the latter and the distance any object can travel given the same initial impulse is significantly increased. The fact it travels so far is actually evidence of low gravity and vacuum, conditions that are expected if this was shot on the Moon. That's physics. You know, that thing you claim to have such a great understanding of you can identify when stuff in Apollo breaks it?
-
Now look at this 0.1 of a second later- the dust is all on the ground, while Cernan is still at his apex.
Wow, did you just do that? Completely ignoring the grey on grey making it harder to see! let's take a snapshot of that area before and during and see if the "dust is all on the ground":
(https://i.ibb.co/tqHQFm5/Animation10.gif)
No, it isn't.
LunarOrbit has sentenced me to unending debates with someone who doesn't understand physics.
Says the man who claims suction-cups/vacuum lifts the dirt and then suggests an attractive force is doing the lifting. You just cannot stop the snide comments.
He might as well put me in a room with a 3 year old and tell me to debate Santa Claus until I concede that Santa is real.
The 3 year-old would win.
Not sure what your worse trait is, misguided arrogance, your persistent need to post snide comments or just your absurdly dishonest obfuscation. You will be the only one dishonest enough to claim they can't see this descending dust wave.
1. Tell everyone why you ignore the same splash marks on the two preceding jumps.
2. Then show this 100% integrity and tell us where the ground splatter has gone in the second John Young jump image!
What do you think this is?
Sand splatter on the ground; NOT between his feet. The sand that rose with John, is already on the ground, splattering.
Here is a screen-print from the second jump where Young's launch has virtually no displacement.
(https://i.ibb.co/K2JQ1Vw/Captain-Bullshit.jpg)(https://i.ibb.co/FXS7vpG/Capture.jpg)
Splatter? What splatter? Where did it go?
Answer my post please!
-
Otherwise he could have bent down the same as all the rest of the times they bent down.
Because the A-7L, and later A-7LB, was a pressurised suit, and so would resist bending (plus, it's thick, so it's literally getting in the way of itself). Even with the convolutes at the main areas of movement, as the suit bent, it would require more and more effort, especially as the resistance from the restraint cables would then kick in. The legs in particular, were difficult to get to bend at angles approaching 90°, the sort of angle you would need to kneel down and pick up an object. John Young damaged, and even broke, his training suit several times whilst performing the sort of manoeuvres seen in the clip, in order to bend the knees and hips enough to touch the ground. It's why, in order to reach an object lying flat on the ground, like a hammer or other tool, the astronauts would perform a small leap, in order to increase the amount of force they can apply to the legs of the suit, and bend them further. Even in the 'jump salutes' the astronaut only bends their knees to around 45°.
-
@LunarOrbit - since you are playing the Salem magistrate - holding me hostage to this thread forever and ever (or until I concede?).
Perhaps you can explain to me how my physics and physiology is factually flawed/wrong?
If we only have people debating something - and there is a unending disagreement -- what else is there to do?
You are forcing a situation that this thread cannot be ended until I concede.
Physics is not my area of expertise. All i can say is that it looks like the astronauts are in 1/6th gravity on the airless moon to me, and you've given me no reason to believe otherwise.
-
#1: ...any object can travel given the same initial impulse is significantly increased.
#2: That's physics.
#1: If you just speed it to 2X, you'll see that the IMPULSE ALSO is DOUBLED. And air impedance of rock-based sand/dust - for short distances at 15 mph, doesn't have much impact on the result during the 0.3 second trajectory.
#2: Yes, this is physics. Do you disagree with #1? It seems you missed this very crucial concept in your judgement.
-
Physics is not my area of expertise. All i can say is that it looks like the astronauts are in 1/6th gravity on the airless moon to me, and you've given me no reason to believe otherwise.
Even MLH agrees with you -- Nearly 100% of what is presented to us at the frame rates presented accurately-enough (for 99% of human eyes) models the Lunar environment. That was their intent, and all they needed to do, to keep people believing -- for 50+ yrs.
It's when you delve into the physics, that we see the "Equations/Laws are seemingly being broken".. Fortunately for Apollo, this is a rare skillset among Americans, which prevents people from "seeing the breakage".
It's hard to emulate it "exactly" for so many hours in a row. And so mess-ups are frequently -- but as we've seen, even these scattered mess-ups will not hinder the momentum of Apollo Faith -- because it's a "Great Story where everyone wins", especially for Americans.
===
For sake of my overall thesis - I'm willing to let this "sand falls to fast" argument drop to the bottom of my list. Reduce it from "smoking gun" to something "harder to prove - too much chaos/ambiguities involved" -- due to the ambiguities over the various source evidence -- too many grains of sand in the air, and hard-to-prove conclusively "which grains should show on the video frames, vs. which ones could still be there even though non-visible on the video frame".
I'd like to close this thread out too, given that no new points are being brought to light. We're just circling dead horses now.
-
Physics is not my area of expertise. All i can say is that it looks like the astronauts are in 1/6th gravity on the airless moon to me, and you've given me no reason to believe otherwise.
Even MLH agrees with you -- Nearly 100% of what is presented to us at the frame rates presented accurately-enough (for 99% of human eyes) models the Lunar environment. That was their intent, and all they needed to do, to keep people believing -- for 50+ yrs.
And yet somehow you... and only you... are able to see through the hoax. ::)
It's when you delve into the physics, that we see the "Equations/Laws are seemingly being broken".. Fortunately for Apollo, this is a rare skillset among Americans, which prevents people from "seeing the breakage".
There's that Najak arrogance again. Everyone is too stupid and/or blind to see what you see. Nobody in the last 50 years has had as much knowledge of physics as you do. All bow down to Najak's giant brain.
It's hard to emulate it "exactly" for so many hours in a row. And so mess-ups are frequently -- but as we've seen, even these scattered mess-ups will not hinder the momentum of Apollo Faith -- because it's a "Great Story where everyone wins", especially for Americans.
Here's an idea... maybe it's you who is wrong, not everyone else.
I'd like to close this thread out too, given that no new points are being brought to light. We're just circling dead horses now.
Nope. How many times do I have to tell you that you don't get to self-declare victory here?
-
[I'd like to close this thread out too, given that no new points are being brought to light. We're just circling dead horses now.
Stop lying! Post 180 details how appalling your answers have been. The following have systematically been evaded by you with no response or diversion.
It only shows up in your version of the video -- not in this photo, nor in the NASA linked video.
1. You claim I doctored footage when your own page 1 example shows the same parabola! Withdraw the claim unconditionally. You repeated this lie even after I posted the gif!
https://i.ibb.co/M9k4Hfk/Apollo-16-big-navy-jump-salute-with-timer.gif
2. You have yet to address the appearance of the same ground mark on the 2 jumps preceding The main Gene Cernan jump....showing the dust hitting the ground as he lands!
(https://s5.ezgif.com/tmp/ezgif-5-3e52b71b43.gif)
3. You have ignored the zoomed in volleyball example showing "dust falls too fast".
https://i.ibb.co/hfDCpk4/Jump1-sandfallsquickly-ezgif-com-resize.gif
4. Not once have you acknowledged that viewing conditions were far from ideal, grey on grey, kicked forwards away from Young and grainy video. Acknowledge this and show some integrity and factor it in.
5. You claimed the visible parabola was a "splatter" where did it go between images? Not a splatter, so what is your new obfuscationary theory?
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg58683#msg58683
6. In that John Young gif, there is a shadow of dust moving forwards on the left and when he is descending there is slight ground discolouration as the dust settles - it moves forwards as a wave.
https://i.ibb.co/qrjRGpk/Jump.gif
7. You are the only one who can't see the Gene Cernan jump's wave of dust hitting the ground in a nice neat event! That is pure dishonest evasion.
https://i.ibb.co/bBN2W5n/ezgif-4-bf2a5dc2a2.gif
8. Your insistence that somebody could kick a wave of dust 1.25m high at 7.22 m per second on Earth, with a sideways flick of their foot is so absurd it becomes pure evasive obfuscation.
https://i.ibb.co/PFMzmYx/9cl91y.gif
I've got way more examples to disprove this puny, myopic thread.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258606632_Ballistic_motion_of_dust_particles_in_the_Lunar_Roving_Vehicle_dust_trails
"V. SUMMARY
We have analyzed the motion of the dust clouds lofted by the Lunar Roving Vehicle of the Apollo 16 mission. Adopting a simple 2D geometry, we found that the dust followed ballistic trajectories under the influence of the lunar gravity. The gravitational constant of the moon derived from the dust trajectory is within 10% of the expected value. The images used in our analysis are available online for use as supplementary material in physics education.
-
#1: And yet somehow you... and only you... are able to see through the hoax. ::)
#2: There's that Najak arrogance again. Everyone is too stupid and/or blind to see what you see. Nobody in the last 50 years has had as much knowledge of physics as you do. All bow down to Najak's giant brain.
#3: Here's an idea... maybe it's you who is wrong, not everyone else.
#4: Nope. How many times do I have to tell you that you don't get to self-declare victory here?
#1: There are plenty of us. I didn't start to see it until a respected college buddy of mine explained why he thought it was a hoax, which got me thinking and took 2 years to START to sink in.
#2: Sure, I'm intellectually arrogant. But no more than a body builder could be arrogant about him saying "I'm stronger than most." Is this arrogance? You are Apollogetically arrogant, looking down on any argument or person who believes differently about Apollo than you. I'd rather most people simply believe "the truth" and that we have unbiased forums for such discussions.
#3: Yes, that's a good idea. Maybe I'm wrong. So let's keep discussing it in a forum without biased admin. Until I get to "test my evidence" against scrutiny - how can we make a fair judgement?
#4: You've declared "defeat" for me unilaterally... like a Salem Witch Trial magistrate. No matter the arguments, you dismiss them and declare 100% uncontested victory for your side - even misrepresenting the true nature/content of the debate.
==
I've made some claims that are awaiting rebuttals. The 8 Flag movements is one of them.. But you closed it out with a dishonest summation, not acknowledging, honestly the inability of Apollogists, so far, to present a viable comprehensive explanation for these 8 flag movements.
If your theory is so strong - you shouldn't be threatened by this Truth. Your dishonesty, indicates that you come from a position of weakness, not strength.
-
If you just speed it to 2X, you'll see that the IMPULSE ALSO is DOUBLED.
No. If you double the speed the energy imparted is significantly more than doubled. If you can't understand why then perhaps your grasp of physics is not as good as you think.
And air impedance of rock-based sand/dust - for short distances at 15 mph, doesn't have much impact on the result during the 0.3 second trajectory.
No, air resistance and gravity are in play the very instant an object is in free flight. You cannot dismiss them. Air resistance may be small for a grain of regolith, but it also has a low mass. Since F=ma, a small mass only need a small force to effect significant acceleration. On the Moon, air resistance is zero, so there is nothing impeding its flight. Gravitational acceleration is perhaps the more significant factor but I notice you didn't mention that.
Dust kicked up on the Moon will travel further than dust kicked up on Earth because of the different environments. The fact that it appears to be travelling too far for dust kicked up on Earth is precisely what you would expect for dust kicked up on the Moon, and speeding up the footage does not produce equivalence. You cannot therefore say that if something is wrong for one it is also wrong for the other.
-
If you just speed it to 2X, you'll see that the IMPULSE ALSO is DOUBLED.
No. If you double the speed the energy imparted is significantly more than doubled. If you can't understand why then perhaps your grasp of physics is not as good as you think.
Your statement is confused. Yes it's 4x the Energy, but STILL only DOUBLE the IMPULSE. Impulse is proportionate to MOMENTUM, not energy. If you double the speed, the impulse is only doubled. And the distance traveled will also double. If you filmed something on earth, e.g. someone kicking sand, then simply played it back at 40% - it would almost EXACTLY look the same as on the moon -- except for the impact of atmosphere....
Air resistance is an acceleration force, and so it's overall impact on distance is a function of Time-Squared - but on earth, the dust travels to it's destination in 0.3 seconds total, and so the T-squared factor at the termination of the motion is 0.09. It doesn't have much time to have much impact on the final distance.
With Dust, the matter of figuring air resistance is trickier, because it's a cloud of dust -- the front particles break wind for the back particles.... so the back particles experience less resistance.
For the dust to travel 2 meters in 0.3 seconds, the average speed only needs to be about 6.7 m/sec or about 15 mph (4 minute mile pace, not even a sprint). Nothing about this is "non-feasible" for Duke to kick this dust 2 meters.
You are welcome to do some image analysis here, to try and prove your point.
Your misunderstanding of the relationship between Impulse and Speed - indicates you don't have the grasp on physics that you thought.
-
Your statement is confused. Yes it's 4x the Energy, but STILL only DOUBLE the IMPULSE. Impulse is proportionate to MOMENTUM, not energy.
I stand corrected.
Air resistance is an acceleration force, and so it's overall impact on distance is a function of Time-Squared - but on earth, the dust travels to it's destination in 0.3 seconds total, and so the T-squared factor at the termination of the motion is 0.09. It doesn't have much time to have much impact on the final distance.
It acts for the same time as gravity. It's an acceleration just as gravity is. I don't see how you can discount one but not the other on that basis. It's a force that can't just be ignored, because it is present in one environment and not the other. Yes, no doubt it is small. However, so are the particles it acts on.
-
It acts for the same time as gravity. It's an acceleration just as gravity is. I don't see how you can discount one but not the other on that basis. It's a force that can't just be ignored, because it is present in one environment and not the other. Yes, no doubt it is small. However, so are the particles it acts on.
Correct - same time as gravity. The highest dust is under 1 foot off the ground. So if the average deceleration from air impedance matched gravity during this time - then it would have a TOTAL impact of reducing the final distance by 1 ft, so instead of going 7.5' it went 6.5'... Given we're dealing with a cloud particles smaller than the resolution of the camera - this "14% unexpected variation" is hard to even show... We aren't dealing with a rigid-well-defined singular object. Here we have about a million dust particles of various sizes, where the front ones get more resistance than the ones trailing... lots and lots of particles, chaos, and variation.
ALSO - yes the particles are small-- but the air resistance ALSO reduces per particle based on it's size. Even play sand, very fine, has a terminal velocity of about 6 m/sec... But within a cloud -- the leading dust experiences this full resistance, while the trailing dust benefits from being drafted along -- to some degree.
Because of this, I've decided to declare this whole "Sand Falls too Fast" point as "hard to prove - too much ambiguity and chaos". Even though I still clearly see a "cloud of dust at boot level, close to the camera - fall way faster than Duke... I'll drop this - because I'm not able to point to specific reference objects... it's a cloud".
I dropped a point that has a LOT LESS AMBIGUITY than the point you are trying to make (14% variation is your point, where as mine was 100%+ variance) .
Shall we drop this, so that we can move on?
-
Post 217 @najak. You make this noise about JayUtah not being here for a few days, but you're here and still deliberately avoiding things.
The now expired gif in that post is from here, watch full screen:
Where is the splatter on the John Young image? Some bloody integrity you've got!
-
Where is the splatter on the John Young image? Some bloody integrity you've got!
Try to explain your hypothesis in better detail. Are you saying that all of the sand Cernan kicked forward also had an upward velocity that approximately matched Cernan? There was no added vertical velocity from the launching of dust? If it wasn't "match Cernan's upward velocity" - you have no proof. Learn physics and logic, or please quit your rather pointless repetitive weary barking.
Also are you saying that dust flung horizontally at a high velocity doesn't scuttle, bounce or roll? It's just lands and stick on first impact?
There is a lot of chaos involved here -- LOTS of ambiguity. You don't seem to realize this.
It's like you are pointing up to the clouds and saying "Look at that dragon... it's definitely a dragon. It's clear, it's fact." And you simply cannot see that there are ambiguities involved, due to the chaos of the large variance in dust launch velocities from the onset.
Show me a more complete science proof. I'm not even sensing our capacity to do this.
-
Your timing was immaculate, thanks. This high resolution photo shows no "dust parabola" between the feet - here we see no dust at all, at apex.
(https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2019.0;attach=1264)
Snap!
(https://i.ibb.co/FXS7vpG/Capture.jpg)
What do you think this is?
Sand splatter on the ground; NOT between his feet. The sand that rose with John, is already on the ground, splattering. Note the "thickness at the ground" - this is what a "splash pattern" looks like -- this isn't what "dust in process of falling" looks like -- so it's already landed, and is splashing back up a small amount.
Here is a screen-print from the second jump where Young's launch has virtually no displacement.
(https://i.ibb.co/K2JQ1Vw/Captain-Bullshit.jpg)(https://i.ibb.co/FXS7vpG/Capture.jpg)
Splatter? What splatter? Where did it go?
Answer my post please!
Try to explain your hypothesis in better detail.
We appear to have a bloody comedian here!
Show me a more complete science proof. I'm not even sensing our capacity to do this.
You are being a deliberate arse.
-
@najak, for the umpteenth time, where did your "splatter" go? Post 225.
[I'd like to close this thread out too, given that no new points are being brought to light. We're just circling dead horses now.
Stop lying! Post 180 details how appalling your answers have been. The following have systematically been evaded by you with no response or diversion.
It only shows up in your version of the video -- not in this photo, nor in the NASA linked video.
1. You claim I doctored footage when your own page 1 example shows the same parabola! Withdraw the claim unconditionally. You repeated this lie even after I posted the gif!
https://i.ibb.co/M9k4Hfk/Apollo-16-big-navy-jump-salute-with-timer.gif
2. You have yet to address the appearance of the same ground mark on the 2 jumps preceding The main Gene Cernan jump....showing the dust hitting the ground as he lands!
3. You have ignored the zoomed in volleyball example showing "dust falls too fast".
https://i.ibb.co/hfDCpk4/Jump1-sandfallsquickly-ezgif-com-resize.gif
4. Not once have you acknowledged that viewing conditions were far from ideal, grey on grey, kicked forwards away from Young and grainy video. Acknowledge this and show some integrity and factor it in. Most of the soil didn't even rise as high as he did!
5. You claimed the visible parabola was a "splatter" where did it go between images? Not a splatter, so what is your new obfuscationary theory?
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg58683#msg58683
6. In that John Young gif, there is a shadow of dust moving forwards on the left and when he is descending there is slight ground discolouration as the dust settles - it moves forwards as a wave.
https://i.ibb.co/qrjRGpk/Jump.gif
7. You are the only one who can't see the Gene Cernan jump's wave of dust hitting the ground in a nice neat event! That is pure dishonest evasion.
https://i.ibb.co/bBN2W5n/ezgif-4-bf2a5dc2a2.gif
8. Your insistence that somebody could kick a wave of dust 1.25m high at 7.22 m per second on Earth, with a sideways flick of their foot is so absurd it becomes pure evasive obfuscation.
https://i.ibb.co/PFMzmYx/9cl91y.gif
I've got way more examples to disprove this puny, myopic thread.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258606632_Ballistic_motion_of_dust_particles_in_the_Lunar_Roving_Vehicle_dust_trails
"V. SUMMARY
We have analyzed the motion of the dust clouds lofted by the Lunar Roving Vehicle of the Apollo 16 mission. Adopting a simple 2D geometry, we found that the dust followed ballistic trajectories under the influence of the lunar gravity. The gravitational constant of the moon derived from the dust trajectory is within 10% of the expected value. The images used in our analysis are available online for use as supplementary material in physics education.
-
@najak - see post above, provide honest answers. I don't care and I'd wager nobody else does that you have conceded the thread claim. These are counter claims and I do not concede that you have answered a single one of them.
-
@najak You have rebuttal to reply to, rebuttal that you have not addressed. If you claim you have, show where, because evasive obfuscation is not addressing things.
-
@najak You have rebuttal to reply to, rebuttal that you have not addressed. If you claim you have, show where, because evasive obfuscation is not addressing things.
Pick your best argument for me to address (again), and I'll address it (again).
-
@najak You have rebuttal to reply to, rebuttal that you have not addressed. If you claim you have, show where, because evasive obfuscation is not addressing things.
Pick your best argument for me to address (again), and I'll address it (again).
ALL OF THE ABOVE have been evaded by you. And please don't insult by claiming the word "again". If you claim any of that list has been addressed show where.
-
ALL OF THE ABOVE have been evaded by you. And please don't insult by claiming the word "again". If you claim any of that list has been addressed show where.
Pick your favorite/best argument, and we'll go through them one-by-one. Start from Best to Worst. Perhaps you'd like to start a thread for each -- gish gallop your way to trying to prove the Moon Landing. Meaningful discussions of multi-pronged attacks requires separate threads.
My Post was ONLY to do with the Side-Jumping Charles Duke case, and the John Young Salute. You've branched it into many other things. So make new threads to prove your points. Or ONLY address these TWO cases for which I was trying to make a point -- but since have conceded that they are ambiguous enough due to a lack of photo/video resolution and perspective.
-
ALL OF THE ABOVE have been evaded by you. And please don't insult by claiming the word "again". If you claim any of that list has been addressed show where.
Pick your favorite/best argument, and we'll go through them one-by-one. Start from Best to Worst. Perhaps you'd like to start a thread for each -- gish gallop your way to trying to prove the Moon Landing. Meaningful discussions of multi-pronged attacks requires separate threads.
My Post was ONLY to do with the Side-Jumping Charles Duke case, and the John Young Salute. You've branched it into many other things. So make new threads to prove your points. Or ONLY address these TWO cases for which I was trying to make a point -- but since have conceded that they are ambiguous enough due to a lack of photo/video resolution and perspective.
Please read this carefully. I do not give a flying fart what your original claim was. You have consistently failed to honestly address counter claims.
Which part of "all of them" is confusing? Do you see the last new one about dust ejected by the rover, analysed by physicists? There are many more of these.
I guarantee that you have not watched a large amount of Apollo footage. An honest and objective physicist would look at the actions related to horizontal motion, mainly the dust and conclude that it's very much not Earth-like.
You have an overwhelming prior conclusion that blocks any ability for reason. Your first objective seems not to be wrong in any fashion that renders your overall claim wrong, Every one of my rebuttal points does that, ergo your evasion and obfuscation.
-
Are you expecting all the dust to reach the same height as the astronaut's boot?
What is the basic physics that you claim the dust must follow?
-
[I'd like to close this thread out too, given that no new points are being brought to light. We're just circling dead horses now.
Stop lying! Post 180 details how appalling your answers have been. The following have systematically been evaded by you with no response or diversion.
It only shows up in your version of the video -- not in this photo, nor in the NASA linked video.
1. You claim I doctored footage when your own page 1 example shows the same parabola! Withdraw the claim unconditionally. You repeated this lie even after I posted the gif!
https://i.ibb.co/M9k4Hfk/Apollo-16-big-navy-jump-salute-with-timer.gif
2. You have yet to address the appearance of the same ground mark on the 2 jumps preceding The main Gene Cernan jump....showing the dust hitting the ground as he lands!
3. You have ignored the zoomed in volleyball example showing "dust falls too fast".
https://i.ibb.co/hfDCpk4/Jump1-sandfallsquickly-ezgif-com-resize.gif
4. Not once have you acknowledged that viewing conditions were far from ideal, grey on grey, kicked forwards away from Young and grainy video. Acknowledge this and show some integrity and factor it in. Most of the soil didn't even rise as high as he did!
5. You claimed the visible parabola was a "splatter" where did it go between images? Not a splatter, so what is your new obfuscationary theory?
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg58683#msg58683
6. In that John Young gif, there is a shadow of dust moving forwards on the left and when he is descending there is slight ground discolouration as the dust settles - it moves forwards as a wave.
https://i.ibb.co/qrjRGpk/Jump.gif
7. You are the only one who can't see the Gene Cernan jump's wave of dust hitting the ground in a nice neat event! That is pure dishonest evasion.
https://i.ibb.co/bBN2W5n/ezgif-4-bf2a5dc2a2.gif
8. Your insistence that somebody could kick a wave of dust 1.25m high at 7.22 m per second on Earth, with a sideways flick of their foot is so absurd it becomes pure evasive obfuscation.
https://i.ibb.co/PFMzmYx/9cl91y.gif
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258606632_Ballistic_motion_of_dust_particles_in_the_Lunar_Roving_Vehicle_dust_trails
"V. SUMMARY
We have analyzed the motion of the dust clouds lofted by the Lunar Roving Vehicle of the Apollo 16 mission. Adopting a simple 2D geometry, we found that the dust followed ballistic trajectories under the influence of the lunar gravity. The gravitational constant of the moon derived from the dust trajectory is within 10% of the expected value. The images used in our analysis are available online for use as supplementary material in physics education.
I've got way more examples to disprove this puny, myopic thread.
All above unanswered.
John Young Jump
1. There is a nice parabolic arc of dust in perfect sync with his jump and the same height. Time up = Time down.
2. Disipation is irrelevant grey on grey on poor grainy video.
3. We clearly see shaded areas on the ground moving forwards away from Young.
Gene Cernan Bunny Hops
1. There is a nice parabolic arc of dust level with his boot. Time up = Time down.
2. Disipation is irrelevant grey on grey on poor grainy video.
3. We clearly see 3 impact areas on the ground for each of the last 3 jumps.
Dust Sideways kick
1. The height of this wave is just plain wrong for a little boot flick.
2. The distance requires >7m per second force with a sideways kick? That's ridiculous.
3. No dust suspension, no matter what you claim.
4. Adjusted for gravity without the unsubstantiated, unproven selective magic speed video, the astronauts look extremely unnatural
Members should be made aware of your truly daft claim that the upward "draft" from a suction vacuum is responsible for lifting the dust off of the surface! Simple experiment, place bucket 1/4 inch from surface and yank it up - are you seriously claiming that the bucket pulls up a column of dirt/sand/dust?
You have nowhere to go now. Cernan and Young jumps both show dust level with boot at apex. Time up = time down. The dust is not on wires therefore......an honest physicist fills in the details.
-
Are you expecting all the dust to reach the same height as the astronaut's boot?
What is the basic physics that you claim the dust must follow?
You appear relatively sane-minded to me. Refreshing.
The main video I focused on was A16, Duke's side-jump, close to the camera - because it's CLOSE UP, so provides the best resolution.
Here is the KRITA frame analysis in MP4 format:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JRjdohQ0cXftl_feaVeMT1rdYSlkS7mS/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JRjdohQ0cXftl_feaVeMT1rdYSlkS7mS/view?usp=drive_link)
I've RETRACTED my claim of this being "good evidence" due to ambiguities... I personally still "see it", but can understand if others don't, and since I can't trace the trajectory of individual particles, but am only dealing with "clouds of dust" partially obscured by the shadows behind it - I've simply withdrawn this claim as "good evidence for MLH".
One thing to note, if you are interested is frame 13 -- we see thick dust at about the same height as his RIGHT FOOT (the left foot he is KICKING UP... so rises higher than Duke's center-of-mass).
This dust that rises as high as his right foot, QUICKLY falls to the ground, which would indicate "higher than lunar gravity" as in this scene, the MLH theory is that Duke is being partially lifted by thin top cable, to make him feel much lighter, and thus falls much slower (2x slower).
Thus if this is on earth, the dust will fall 2x faster... which is "what I see"... and simply realize this isn't a good place to "fight a battle" as there is simply too much room for bias/ambiguities.
Notice that by frame 18, the dust from under his left foot is COMPLETELY GONE, while his right foot is still far from reaching the ground.
No need to argue this further if you don't see it. That's fine.
Unlike some other people here (who never took physics at all), they cannot accept that not everyone agrees or sees the same stuff -- especially when things are so cloudy (pun intended).
-
.... gish gallop....
This forum doesn't allow Gish-gallop. So please boil it down to one-point-at-a-time. And why don't you simply create a thread for your favorite "slam-dunk" so that it can be clearly identified and seen by others... instead of being stuck in this mish-mashed thread.
Those who rely on Gish-Gallop are afraid to make "one point at a time", because it exposes you... Make a new thread, so that you can have your main issue achieve front-and-center clear attention. Show everyone that you can slam the MLH "smart guy".
-
What is the basic physics that you claim the dust must follow?
And interestingly, if you watch the FULL CLIP, it's rather humorous and brings up another MLH claim, which is that "Duke cannot bend down to get the hammer!" Why can't he simply drop to his knees as is done by others using the same space suit model?? MLH theory here is that Duke's "cable lift pressure" was simply too high. This suit model was the revised A16 model which allowed for greater maneuverability including the skinny legs, to that kneeling was possible.
Instead resorts to getting tongs to pick up the hammer after a half-dozen failed attempts at kneeling down.
Here's the video link that included this Side Jump, Starting at 1:45 into the film:
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1464821.mpg (https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1464821.mpg)
-
This forum doesn't allow Gish-gallop. So please boil it down to one-point-at-a-time.
Try very hard to stop being an arse. Post #234 has no Gish galloping. It is entirely on topic and straight rebuttal to your conceded rubbish. Everyone can see your actions, even the ignorant Facebook crew watching this.
-
And interestingly, if you watch the FULL CLIP, it's rather humorous and brings up another MLH claim, which is that "Duke cannot bend down to get the hammer!" Why can't he simply drop to his knees as is done by others using the same space suit model?? MLH theory here is that Duke's "cable lift pressure" was simply too high. This suit model was the revised A16 model which allowed for greater maneuverability including the skinny legs, to that kneeling was possible.
Instead resorts to getting tongs to pick up the hammer after a half-dozen failed attempts at kneeling down.
That is a pathetic off topic Gish gallop. Show where "others" do a similar maneuver. Actually don't bother, you can't and you are just evading the topic.
-
That is a pathetic off topic Gish gallop. Show where "others" do a similar maneuver. Actually don't bother, you can't and you are just evading the topic.
It's the SAME clip, same PART. I can show tons of videos where astronauts can bend down, or even last-resort fall-forward and catch themselves, then push back up. This particular scene is the ONLY case where he can't get himself onto his knees... and takes 90 seconds to do a 10 second job, because of it. I'd LOVE to create a thread on "Astronautics", of which this clip is one of my favs.
-
That is a pathetic off topic Gish gallop. Show where "others" do a similar maneuver. Actually don't bother, you can't and you are just evading the topic.
It's the SAME clip, same PART. I can show tons of videos where astronauts can bend down, or even last-resort fall-forward and catch themselves, then push back up. This particular scene is the ONLY case where he can't get himself onto his knees... and takes 90 seconds to do a 10 second job, because of it. I'd LOVE to create a thread on "Astronautics", of which this clip is one of my favs.
Utter bullshit. It's like you're watching something completely different to the rest of the world and concluding that because you don't understand it, it means something. So you still playing the coward card on Reply #234?
-
So you still playing the coward card on Reply #234?
I cannot respond to a Gish Gallop post. Make one argument at a time, and I'll respond (again, and again, and again) - -like debating with a toaster.
"Coward": I'd LOVE to meet you in some other forum where you aren't positioned within the lap of your peers. Let's do it. Come to Rasa's FB page, and impress us with your bravery.
Or just be brave enough to stand behind "one point at a time" (or multiple, if you want to make more threads). You can show everyone repeatedly how superior you are, and how daft and cowardly am I.
-
So you still playing the coward card on Reply #234?
I cannot respond to a Gish Gallop post.
You will respond to that post, in full, or you will be banned. I am tired of you ignoring our questions, dismissing our explanations, and declaring yourself the victor based solely on your delusions of grandeur.
-
You will respond to that post, in full, or you will be banned. I am tired of you ignoring our questions, dismissing our explanations, and declaring yourself the victor based solely on your delusions of grandeur.
I've already responded multiple times to all of the points he raises here. He doesn't like my answers; I don't like his. That's debate.
If he thinks there are ANY that I haven't responded to - I'd like to see which one(s) - and I'll respond to those specifically, or reference where I have already responded.
You don't REPOST the 20 things that have ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED for pages.. and then say "Hah, I win, you didn't respond to these" -- when I already did.
I'm asking him to show me just ONE where I didn't, and I'll address it as you are mandating. But I am debating a toaster here.
-
You will respond to that post, in full, or you will be banned. I am tired of you ignoring our questions, dismissing our explanations, and declaring yourself the victor based solely on your delusions of grandeur.
I've already responded multiple times to all of the points he raises here.
Do it again.
-
Here are your responses Mag40:
1. I don't see the parabola in the NASA footage. If there is one, it's scant, and explained by the dust rising up FASTER than the foot, clearly -- as it would be HIGHER than the foot, so must have risen up faster.
2. Dust "landing" is dust scuttling along the ground, as it does in real life if you kick sand. We can't see the trajectory of this sand - it's NOT VISIBLE ON FILM. So we cannot assert that it was following a parabola, when it's not visible... except ALONG THE GROUND where it's scuttling.
3. Your volleyball example is FAR away, moving to the side, and the sand does NOT rise as high as the jumper. So there is nothing to compare here. MY EXAMPLE of the volleyball player jump, is CLEAR, CLOSE, and demonstrates that the dust falls at the same rate. This one is MORE similar to the Duke Side-jump example.
4. Acknowledged! I called this "ambiguous" - obscured, cloudy.
5. The scant parabola that I don't see in the NASA footage is obviously scant... dispersion happens... so thick becomes less thick, and scant becomes invisible. Or in this case "more invisible".
6. Sure, dust is flying in many directions, and there is chaos. SOME of the sand is kicked UP... perhaps FASTER than his center-of-mass. Thus it's ambiguous. There are NO PARTICLES for which you can "track with certainty" to determine it's path. Thus, it's ambiguous. And the signs of CHAOS (varieties of launch velocities) - is a big part of the ambiguity -- we cannot ascertain apples-to-apples.
7. I'm not the only one. Dust clouds are dark.. this darkness drops to close to the ground, then continues forward ALONG THE GROUND LEVEL -- like scuttling sand.... until it hits a high-point, and then stops like a highway pile-up. That's what I see. If you don't - that's OK. I'm still claiming this to be ambiguous, because of chaos, low-resolution, and inability to track individual projectiles.
8. I think an athlete could easily do this. The 10 degree flinch in his whole upper torso is a sign of significant exertion. You don't see it that way. I'm not asking you to agree with me. Post this wherever you want. I still won't agree that this type of kick is "non-feasible", and I don't see any proof that it's not. This is just speculation on your part. This is your claim, not mine.
-
Ok, one at a time as you seem incapable of an honest reply!
It only shows up in your version of the video -- not in this photo, nor in the NASA linked video.
1. You claim I doctored footage when your own page 1 example shows the same parabola! Withdraw the claim unconditionally. You repeated this lie even after I posted the gif!
(https://i.ibb.co/M9k4Hfk/Apollo-16-big-navy-jump-salute-with-timer.gif)(https://i.ibb.co/S5ZsGGK/ezgif-1-ca03c3113c.gif)
1. I don't see the parabola in the NASA footage. If there is one, it's scant, and explained by the dust rising up FASTER than the foot, clearly -- as it would be HIGHER than the foot, so must have risen up faster.
The footage I originally cited IS NASA footage and was provided by Dwight! However even on the crusty version you posted the parabola is still there between his boots in perfect sync. What is this lie about higher and faster?
-
The footage I originally cited IS NASA footage and was provided by Dwight! However even on the crusty version you posted the parabola is still there.
Fine. I can see it in the NASA link if I really want to see it. But what does this prove? Dust is ABOVE the foot -- so clearly started on a FASTER trajectory. Also, in an atmosphere, lighter dust can rise fast, but then falls slower, due to air resistance... air resistance interferes with the "parabola claim" entirely... Shoot a Remington up to the sky... it starts out at MACH 3, but when it hits, it's well under MACH 1... Same concept applies to dust in an atmosphere...
So this "scant parabola" may just be more proof of an atmosphere.
I'm willing to call it ambiguous... because it is. BOTH sides have viable explanations here. I personally think these videos show the "heavier sand falling faster than it should", and if lighter dust lingers higher for longer -- that too looks to me like evidence of atmosphere.
But have dropped this point -- because I appropriately realize the ambiguity here, and your right to your own opinion.
We've clearly stated our opinions, and rationale. As with most debates, they typically do not end with agreement. Yet you are abusing your privilege of trying to force me to agree with something that I do not agree with. Society has long established this as wrongful practice. Free thought is good.
-
The footage I originally cited IS NASA footage and was provided by Dwight! However even on the crusty version you posted the parabola is still there.
Fine. I can see it in the NASA link if I really want to see it. But what does this prove? Dust is ABOVE the foot -- so clearly started on a FASTER trajectory. Also, in an atmosphere, lighter dust can rise fast, but then falls slower, due to air resistance... air resistance interferes with the "parabola claim" entirely... Shoot a Remington up to the sky... it starts out at MACH 3, but when it hits, it's well under MACH 1... Same concept applies to dust in an atmosphere...
..
You can't think of another reason that the regolith is above the boots? I can and it DOES NOT INVOLVE FASTER TRAJECTORY. Can you think of another reason that makes more sense than the drivel you post?
-
You can't think of another reason that the regolith is above the boots? I can and it DOES NOT INVOLVE FASTER TRAJECTORY. Can you think of another reason that makes more sense than the drivel you post?
Some could be from the top of the boot to begin with. If you look closely at the initial frames after leaving the ground, you'll see a cloud of dust to the right side of his boot, already a couple inches higher than the boot bottom... This appears to be "dust launched FASTER"...
So Chaos is involved. It's like pointing at the clouds and saying "I see a dragon", and you saying "not it's Trump sucking on something"... it's too ambiguous to make proofs.
-
Fine. I can see it in the NASA link if I really want to see it. But what does this prove?
You accused me of doctoring my version!
Dust is ABOVE the foot -- so clearly started on a FASTER trajectory.
Bullshit. That shaded area is the left foot toe of his boot.
Also, in an atmosphere, lighter dust can rise fast, but then falls slower, due to air resistance... air resistance interferes with the "parabola claim" entirely... Shoot a Remington up to the sky... it starts out at MACH 3, but when it hits, it's well under MACH 1... Same concept applies to dust in an atmosphere..
Pure irrelevance.
So this "scant parabola" may just be more proof of an atmosphere.
Oh, so it's scant now is it? And "proof of an atmosphere" with no bloody dust suspension?
And all of it debunked by a simple little dust parabola between his boots.
(https://i.ibb.co/LSRLskR/output-onlinegiftools.gif)
Now, everyone who sees this can see the parabolic arc of dust - including you! This is better and clearer footage of the same event.
We've clearly stated our opinions, and rationale. As with most debates, they typically do not end with agreement. Yet you are abusing your privilege of trying to force me to agree with something that I do not agree with. Society has long established this as wrongful practice. Free thought is good.
My privilege? I'm a member who abides by the rules.
The parabola ascends in perfect sync with his jump and to the same visible height - are you seriously still bloody denying this? Of course you are because that little clip all on its own shows he is in low gravity.
I remember long ago a video by @Luke Pemberton that put the video footage at a very close proximity to lunar gravity. I don't care what idiotic wires claim you make here. It can only equate to Earth gravity with an increase of close to 245%. You know this and it is why you have no recourse but to deny it come what may.
-
Some could be from the top of the boot to begin with. If you look closely at the initial frames after leaving the ground, you'll see a cloud of dust to the right side of his boot, already a couple inches higher than the boot bottom...
Indeed it is regolith on top of the boot
This appears to be "dust launched FASTER"...
Not on your life or mine or anybody, you are just making up stuff again. There is no propulsive mechanism except the boot, The regolith on top of the boot starts the journey at a slightly higher elevation nothing more.
So Chaos is involved. It's like pointing at the clouds and saying "I see a dragon", and you saying "not it's Trump sucking on something"... it's too ambiguous to make proofs.
I would not classify it as chaos, but I'm not attempting to prove a conspiratory observation. Now the regolith on top of the boot will because it started higher will be the last to fall, the regolith that the boot kicked uphill fall to the surface sooner. This observation should never have been made to "prove some conspiracy". You have wasted a lot of your time and a lot of other's as well.
-
Would you have a look, full screen on the video in my post above? His left foot starts straight and ends up turned out.
If there is dust on his boot(it's minuscule) it is kicked forwards and left at the same speed as his boot, exactly as you stated.
-
This observation should never have been made to "prove some conspiracy". You have wasted a lot of your time and a lot of other's as well.
I have been trying to retract this thread for a LONG TIME. I have nothing more to say here. It's ambiguous. We are going to see different things, and given the poor granularity of the evidence, nothing can be proven here in a reasonable fashion. Mag40 has the logic of a toaster, and I'm stuck in a room debating with this toaster over something that isn't even my claim anymore.
I'd like to move on to some things that aren't ambiguous. But this forum is afraid for me to make points that don't look good for Apollo.
-
Indeed it is regolith on top of the boot.
Would you have a look, full screen on the video(watch on YouTube)? His left foot starts straight and ends up turned out.
If there is dust on his boot(it's miniscule) it is kicked forwards and left at the same speed as his boot, exactly as you stated.
Just in case you don't know, if you click the cog, you can change playback speed to 0.25. There is only the toe of his boot as far as I can see.
-
2. Dust "landing" is dust scuttling along the ground, as it does in real life if you kick sand. We can't see the trajectory of this sand - it's NOT VISIBLE ON FILM. So we cannot assert that it was following a parabola, when it's not visible... except ALONG THE GROUND where it's scuttling.
Did you even read the bloody question? That answers something else and not the thing I asked. I am invoking an appeal to honesty not some privilege given to me by the site owner.
2. You have yet to address the appearance of the same ground mark on the 2 jumps preceding The main Gene Cernan jump....showing the dust hitting the ground as he lands!
And you have still failed to address this. You made some puny obfuscation about how long the mark remained on the last visible impact, yet the same thing occurs as he lands on both previous jumps.
-
And you have still failed to address this. You made some puny obfuscation about how long the mark remained on the last visible impact, yet the same thing occurs as he lands on both previous jumps.
OK, lets answer these this way then...
If there is a parabolic trajectory involved here - we cannot see this trajectory. So it's speculation.
MORE IMPORTANTLY, kicking sand is chaotic - causes various launch velocities -- some of them with an UPWARD COMPONENT that could easily be higher than the speed of the Cernan's COM (center of mass)... so again, we've got a mix of things going on here - all far from the camera.
On what grounds do you presume the sand kicked forward to have the same upwards launch velocity as Cernan's COM? You got nothing to go on here.
Learn to identify ambiguity when you see it. Stop being a toaster.
-
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg59881#msg59881
I won't allow you to pretend not to see replies.
-
If there is a parabolic trajectory involved here - we cannot see this trajectory. So it's speculation.
Cernan lands 3 times. On each landing, there is a final impact splash. The dust trajectory on the first 2 jumps is irrelevant. The coincidence factor comes in to play. Three jumps, three marks on the ground at landing. Slam-dunk is the phrase you used. I can only imagine how you would be all over this if it proved the opposite!
MORE IMPORTANTLY, kicking sand is chaotic - causes various launch velocities -- some of them with an UPWARD COMPONENT that could easily be higher than the speed of the Cernan's COM (center of mass)... so again, we've got a mix of things going on here - all far from the camera.
I highlighted exactly the state of this issue:
(https://i.ibb.co/vkXZd4X/Apex.png)
On what grounds do you presume the sand kicked forward to have the same upwards launch velocity as Cernan's COM? You got nothing to go on here.
Visible evidence.
(https://i.ibb.co/bBN2W5n/ezgif-4-bf2a5dc2a2.gif)
Learn to identify ambiguity when you see it. Stop being a toaster.
Learn honesty, lose this unscientific conformation bias. Get your own label. You have the logic of a toaster.
-
3. You have ignored the zoomed in volleyball example showing "dust falls too fast".
(https://i.ibb.co/hfDCpk4/Jump1-sandfallsquickly-ezgif-com-resize.gif)
3. Your volleyball example is FAR away, moving to the side, and the sand does NOT rise as high as the jumper. So there is nothing to compare here. MY EXAMPLE of the volleyball player jump, is CLEAR, CLOSE, and demonstrates that the dust falls at the same rate. This one is MORE similar to the Duke Side-jump example.
You definitely did not even look. This is one of the easier ones, surely you've got the honesty to concede this?
-
You definitely did not even look. This is one of the easier ones, surely you've got the honesty to concede this?
I'll concede, the sand in this one rises to the height of the feet, then dissipates to invisible. Thus we lose track of it. But in a close-up volleyball shot (mine) - it does not dissipate.
So we have ambiguity. So did the sand on the moon dissipate or fall-too-fast? It's ambiguous given the low-granularity of the photos/footage.
-
Your shot simply has wetter/darker sand under foot. Irrelevant. There are circumstances where this occurs and they are not even remotely suspicious or deserving of a scientist's attention.
Posts #258 and #259 please. But try to actually address the post - maybe watch what is being presented this time eh?
-
Your shot simply has wetter/darker sand under foot. Irrelevant. There are circumstances where this occurs and they are not even remotely suspicious or deserving of a scientist's attention.
Posts #258 and #259 please. But try to actually address the post - maybe watch what is being presented this time eh?
#258 itself points to a big messy post. Make a clear point here, and I'll address.
#259 - your "coincidence" argument holds some weight. 3x, same behavior. It addresses the "scuttling sand hit's HIGH point", weakening that claim of a "high point".
For 3 cases, we have a "chaotic launch of dust at various velocities (direction and speed)" - producing a very similar result. This doesn't mean that "the sand was all projected upwards at the SAME speed as Cernan's center-of-mass"... If sand was projected with an upwards angle (which likely was) -- we're talking Apples to Oranges. You can only compare projectiles with the same starting vertical velocity.
With an atmosphere, the wind-resistance impact on dust is greater than it is on Cernan too, which would have impact on the fall time.
So your argument here combats the likeliness of a "high point" playing a role on "scuttling sand". So if you want to call this a "smoking gun that there wasn't a high-point on the ground to block scuttling sand", be my guest. I'll consider that to be a compelling argument, against the "high point" theory -- and as a result, I won't propose the "high point" hypothesis again, because your argument makes it evident that this "high point" hypothesis is unlikely.
However, it does NOT remove the ambiguity involved in trying to decipher whether or not this was on the moon or earth -- based upon these videos.
-
#258 itself points to a big messy post.
Bollocks. You accused me of doctoring footage and the same parabola occurs in your version. A parabola that you are afraid to honestly address because it doesn't have any hoax explanation.
Make a clear point here, and I'll address.
No, you will obfuscate just like below.
#259 - your "coincidence" argument holds some weight. 3x, same behavior. It addresses the "scuttling sand hit's HIGH point", weakening that claim of a "high point".
So, 3 jumps, as he lands the same impact splash. The final jump ONLY YOU cannot see the clear wave progressively hitting the surface culminating in.......one of the "coincidence" splashes?
We've had the bullshit stagehand A14 flag coincidence with depressursiation. You people really like pushing conspiracy bollocks don't you.
For 3 cases, we have a "chaotic launch of dust at various velocities (direction and speed)" - producing a very similar result. This doesn't mean that "the sand was all projected upwards at the SAME speed as Cernan's center-of-mass"... If sand was projected with an upwards angle (which likely was) -- we're talking Apples to Oranges. You can only compare projectiles with the same starting vertical velocity.
Obfuscation and evasion.
With an atmosphere, the wind-resistance impact on dust is greater than it is on Cernan too, which would have impact on the fall time.
Bollocks - it's minimal at that height.
However, it does NOT remove the ambiguity involved in trying to decipher whether or not this was on the moon or earth -- based upon these videos.
There is no ambiguity. You are cornered and know it.
We see the dust rise level with Cernan and we see the wave striking progressively :
I highlighted exactly the state of this issue:
(https://i.ibb.co/vkXZd4X/Apex.png)
Visible evidence:
(https://i.ibb.co/bBN2W5n/ezgif-4-bf2a5dc2a2.gif)
-
For you sake, we can remove the scuttling sand concept, for sake of argument. What does this leave us with? Sand hitting the ground from an UNKNOWN TRAJECTORY... likely starting out moving up FASTER than the COM of Cernan.
Without being able to track trajectories, there is nothing that can be PROVEN here, no matter how much you want to think otherwise.
But if you want to declare this PROOF on your resume -- go for it. I will only expose your toaster logic to the world.
-
#258 itself points to a big messy post.
Bollocks. You accused me of doctoring footage and the same parabola occurs in your version. A parabola that you are afraid to honestly address because it doesn't have any hoax explanation.
We've been through this... there was dust from top of the boot and also seen at launch of his foot... at SIDE of his foot HIGHER than the sole of his foot -- so moving upwards faster... Sand falling off the top of his boot is falling off AFTER LAUNCH - therefore carried upwards for a time by his boot. Chaos. Various launch starting points, and velocities. Apples to Oranges. Lo-resolution does not permit an adequate analysis.
-
#258 itself points to a big messy post.
Bollocks. You accused me of doctoring footage and the same parabola occurs in your version. A parabola that you are afraid to honestly address because it doesn't have any hoax explanation.
We've been through this... there was dust from top of the boot and also seen at launch of his foot... at SIDE of his foot HIGHER than the sole of his foot -- so moving upwards faster... Sand falling off the top of his boot is falling off AFTER LAUNCH - therefore carried upwards for a time by his boot. Chaos. Various launch starting points, and velocities. Apples to Oranges. Lo-resolution does not permit an adequate analysis.
If low resolution prevents adequate analysis, everything you wrote before that is irrelevant.
-
Sand hitting the ground from an UNKNOWN TRAJECTORY... likely starting out moving up FASTER than the COM of Cernan.
Obfuscation/evasion.
Without being able to track trajectories, there is nothing that can be PROVEN here, no matter how much you want to think otherwise.
But we ARE able to track it quite clearly and we know how high the dust wave reached. Post 264.
But if you want to declare this PROOF on your resume -- go for it. I will only expose your toaster logic to the world.
The only thing you expose is your inability to evade things you don't like.
-
We've been through this
Bollocks again. "We" haven't been through anything. YOU claim the dust on his toe and I suggest it is his boot.
there was dust from top of the boot and also seen at launch of his foot... at SIDE of his foot HIGHER than the sole of his foot -- so moving upwards faster... Sand falling off the top of his boot is falling off AFTER LAUNCH - therefore carried upwards for a time by his boot. Chaos. Various launch starting points, and velocities. Apples to Oranges. Lo-resolution does not permit an adequate analysis.
A pathetic and irrelevant reply. AGAIN!
You accused me of supplying doctored footage - a much clearer direct recording supplied by Dwight. The same parabolic arc occurred on your version in post 1.
Withdraw your claim of it being doctored. What are you afraid of here? The clearer footage shows that circled dark area you mentioned as being simply the toe of his boot.
The large elephant in the room is trumpeting and you ignore it. Parabolic arc - time up (which we see) = time down (which we don't for established reasons).
You cannot agree with this because it closes the whole case. Low gravity on the Moon.
-
If low resolution prevents adequate analysis, everything you wrote before that is irrelevant.
The required resolution is a function of "size of particle". If analyzing dust -- the resolution needs to be much higher.
-
On what grounds do you presume the sand kicked forward to have the same upwards launch velocity as Cernan's COM? You got nothing to go on here.
Visible evidence.
Height at boot level...
(https://i.ibb.co/vkXZd4X/Apex.png)
Progressive fall and final impact
(https://i.ibb.co/bBN2W5n/ezgif-4-bf2a5dc2a2.gif)
Learn to identify ambiguity when you see it. Stop being a toaster.
Learn honesty, lose this unscientific conformation bias. Get your own label. You have the logic of a toaster.
EVERYONE can see this apart from najak. The problem is pure denial. The mark on striking the surface on a wave clearly at boot height, occurs in the preceding two jumps.
No wonder he won't concede this, John Young jump and this and he's cornered.
-
EVERYONE can see this apart from najak. The problem is pure denial. The mark on striking the surface on a wave clearly at boot height, occurs in the preceding two jumps.
No wonder he won't concede this, John Young jump and this and he's cornered.
If you feel so smart and sure. Try debating this with me somewhere else, and see what others think outside of this echo chamber.
I see a THICK DUST CLOUD below the foot that falls QUICKLY, then scuttles.
If you want to say "no it dissipates!">.... then fine, that means there MIGHT BE DUST ABOVE THE FOOT going upwards that we simply cannot see... until it collects at the landing.
Oddly, we see this unmoving dark spot stay stationary for 1/3rd of a second!... why? Did ALL of the dust magically follow the SAME parabolic arc -- but hit at a 1/3rd of second time span??? This too makes no sense.
You would lose your socks in a real debate under neutral grounds. The overwhelming evidence here indicates "Ambiguity". But you, like a toaster, think it's "bullet proof, smoking gun".
If you think I'm a toaster - great -- quit spending your time FORCING me (by LO's mandate) to address your SAME arguments again and again , and again... and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, ..
This is getting nowhere. You've said you piece. Have nothing new to say. So you are beating a dead horse. Learn to move on. Go toast some bread.
-
So far:
1. You claim I doctored footage when your own page 1 example shows the same parabola! Withdraw the claim unconditionally. You repeated this lie even after I posted the gif! Has not withdrawn the claim it was doctored, maintains some dark area is an irrelevant clump of soil that flies off faster then his boot! Still denies the premise of the visible parabola.
2. You have yet to address the appearance of the same ground mark on the 2 jumps preceding The main Gene Cernan jump....showing the dust hitting the ground as he lands! Denies the obvious smooth landing dust wave and says the 3 impacts are coincidence.
3. Your volleyball example is FAR away, moving to the side, and the sand does NOT rise as high as the jumper. So there is nothing to compare here. MY EXAMPLE of the volleyball player jump, is CLEAR, CLOSE, and demonstrates that the dust falls at the same rate. This one is MORE similar to the Duke Side-jump example. Reluctantly conceded - invalidating the entire premise of the thread (but in fairness it has been conceded in general).
4. Not once have you acknowledged that viewing conditions were far from ideal, grey on grey, kicked forwards away from Young and grainy video. Acknowledge this and show some integrity and factor it in. Most of the soil didn't even rise as high as he did! Finally conceded
----------------------------------------
5. You claimed the visible parabola was a "splatter" where did it go between images? Not a splatter, so what is your new obfuscationary theory?
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg58683#msg58683
5. The scant parabola that I don't see in the NASA footage is obviously scant... dispersion happens... so thick becomes less thick, and scant becomes invisible. Or in this case "more invisible".
A complete evasion! This is as tedious as it gets. You said the mark here:
(https://i.ibb.co/FXS7vpG/Capture.jpg)
was a splatter.
The picture taken seconds after shows it gone!
(https://i.ibb.co/K2JQ1Vw/Captain-Bullshit.jpg)
It's the parabolic arc that you are afraid to concede. Slam dunk. Unless you have an honest answer for this?
-
{recap}
Great, you summarized your gripes and why you think you have a smoking gun. Congrats, publish it.
Can we be done now?
-
This is getting nowhere.
No. We are establishing just how far you will go to deny the obvious, in pursuit of your confirmation bias.
You've said you piece. Have nothing new to say.
Unfortunately that isn't the problem. Your lack of adequate and accurate replies is clearly the issue here.
So you are beating a dead horse. Learn to move on. Go toast some bread.
Soon. After we've dotted all the denial and crossed all the evasion.
Can we be done now?
Soon... answer point 5 just above. You said it was a ground splatter. Type the words "it is clearly a scant column of dust".
I'm going to briefly revisit point 8 and the one you didn't even answer - dust related of course:
I've got way more examples to disprove this puny, myopic thread.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258606632_Ballistic_motion_of_dust_particles_in_the_Lunar_Roving_Vehicle_dust_trails
"V. SUMMARY
We have analyzed the motion of the dust clouds lofted by the Lunar Roving Vehicle of the Apollo 16 mission. Adopting a simple 2D geometry, we found that the dust followed ballistic trajectories under the influence of the lunar gravity. The gravitational constant of the moon derived from the dust trajectory is within 10% of the expected value. The images used in our analysis are available online for use as supplementary material in physics education.
As for your claim that dust rose higher blah blah, based on you circling a darker area - this is a mixture of shadow and regolith but easier to see on the better footage:
(https://i.ibb.co/tmh8zN8/shadow.jpg)
Or is this not "ambiguous"?
-
I don't see any dust higher either about level with the bottom of the boot for my eyes.
-
Quick summary - point 5 still evaded and points 9 and 10 new additions. There are dozens more examples where dust behaves in a non-terrestrial fashion.
1. You claim I doctored footage when your own page 1 example shows the same parabola! Withdraw the claim unconditionally. You repeated this lie even after I posted the gif! Has not withdrawn the claim it was doctored, maintains a dark area(just shadow) is an irrelevant clump of soil that flies off faster then his boot! Still denies the premise of the visible parabola.
https://i.ibb.co/tmh8zN8/shadow.jpg
2. You have yet to address the appearance of the same ground mark on the 2 jumps preceding The main Gene Cernan jump....showing the dust hitting the ground as he lands! Denies the obvious smooth landing dust wave and says the 3 impacts are coincidence.
https://youtu.be/NHeOpJh5Q-M (https://youtu.be/NHeOpJh5Q-M)
3. You have ignored the zoomed in volleyball example showing "dust falls too fast".
Reluctantly conceded after it was shown he didn't even look at the gif - invalidating the entire premise of the thread (but in fairness it has been conceded in general).
https://i.ibb.co/hfDCpk4/Jump1-sandfallsquickly-ezgif-com-resize.gif
4. Not once have you acknowledged that viewing conditions were far from ideal, grey on grey, kicked forwards away from Young and grainy video. Acknowledge this and show some integrity and factor it in. Most of the soil didn't even rise as high as he did! Finally conceded.
----------------------------------------
5. You claimed the visible parabola was a "splatter" where did it go between images? Not a splatter, so what is your new obfuscationary theory?
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg58683#msg58683
5. The scant parabola that I don't see in the NASA footage is obviously scant... dispersion happens... so thick becomes less thick, and scant becomes invisible. Or in this case "more invisible".
A complete evasion! This is as tedious as it gets. You said the mark here:
(https://i.ibb.co/FXS7vpG/Capture.jpg)
was a splatter.
The picture taken seconds after shows it gone!
(https://i.ibb.co/K2JQ1Vw/Captain-Bullshit.jpg)
It's the parabolic arc that you are afraid to concede. Slam dunk. Unless you have an honest answer for this?
6. In that John Young gif, there is a shadow of dust moving forwards on the left and when he is descending there is slight ground discolouration as the dust settles - it moves forwards as a wave.
Finally answered - conceded.
https://i.ibb.co/qrjRGpk/Jump.gif
7. You are the only one who can't see the Gene Cernan jump's wave of dust hitting the ground in a nice neat event!
And still the ONLY person who cannot see this - pure denial
https://i.ibb.co/bBN2W5n/ezgif-4-bf2a5dc2a2.gif
8. Your insistence that somebody could kick a wave of dust 1.25m high at 7.22 m per second on Earth, with a sideways flick of their foot is so absurd it becomes pure evasive obfuscation.
Denial again - apparently it's an athlete doing this. No dust suspension and an alien height/speed for the dust wave
https://i.ibb.co/PFMzmYx/9cl91y.gif
9.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258606632_Ballistic_motion_of_dust_particles_in_the_Lunar_Roving_Vehicle_dust_trails
"V. SUMMARY
We have analyzed the motion of the dust clouds lofted by the Lunar Roving Vehicle of the Apollo 16 mission. Adopting a simple 2D geometry, we found that the dust followed ballistic trajectories under the influence of the lunar gravity. The gravitational constant of the moon derived from the dust trajectory is within 10% of the expected value. The images used in our analysis are available online for use as supplementary material in physics education."
10. Harrison Schmitt bounding downhill, blasting dust all over the place at ridiculous speeds when playback is increased. Speeding it up 1.5 times using inbuilt YouTube display (too slow, visibly so) it's already travelling madly too quick and far. There is no COM/COG jerking from a non-vertical wire - meaning it must match his speed, direction and orientation the whole time. Anyone who thinks such a thing possible doesn't understand how wire supports work - especially invisible ones.
Mythbusters had Adam Savage in a suit with wires to simulate 1/6g and (ignoring how the hoax claim is speed and wires combined) his motion is clearly jerky as even slight vertical misalignment pulls back.