Recent Posts

1

The Hoax Theory / Re: Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.

« Last post by BertieSlack on Today at 04:09:27 PM »

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.

2

The Hoax Theory / Re: Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.

« Last post by najak on Today at 02:49:03 PM »

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.

3

The Hoax Theory / Re: Impossible Film Tech?

« Last post by najak on Today at 02:40:52 PM »

Straight from the HB playbook of, something might be possible(in their opinion) therefore it was hoaxed. The problems aren't whether it was possible to do this on video in 1969-1972, it's how do you recreate the absurd motion encountered when the speed is altered for gravity.

Horizontal actions are unaffected by gravity. Meaning that whilst you see vertical motion "corrected" from altering playback speed, the horizontal activity is unaffected and looks insanely odd. Some of these EVA sequences were continuous unbroken over 40 minutes (I am not sure the largest time). So the 30 second figure quoted is not even going to come close.

My HB rationale is that "Apollo cannot break physics." - this is impossible.   Yet they have, many times.   So I am trying to reconcile this impossibility, and I believe the claim that "video tech in 1969 wasn't sufficient" is a far weaker claim.   And I'm seeing PNA's over-reach here, making false claims about the lack of tech (still present SG Collins original video which even SG Collins admitted was wrong).   Why lie, if you are standing on the truth?

I don't agree with your "vertical vs. horizontal" issue.   A slow forward jump, will ALSO result in slower horizontal speed... thus it's fully consistent with low-gravity.  They are not playing the "Launch of the projectile" at full-speed, then slowing down only the trajectory -- they are slowing done BOTH -- thus the horizontal speed of projection is also slowed to 40%.   Thus it's consistent with the vertical/gravity component as well.  100% consistency.

Do you really think my argument here is untrue?   This basic simple physics.

@Allen F - promised me "smart scientific minds" here on this forum.   But so far, I'm getting responses from people who don't seem to understand basic simple physics.

@Mag40 - I apologize for my offense here to you.  I just think you might be in over your head on this.  Maybe I'm missing something.

Is there anyone here, who can make arguments that demonstrate a solid understanding of physics?

4

The Hoax Theory / Re: Impossible Film Tech?

« Last post by Mag40 on Today at 02:23:12 PM »

Straight from the HB playbook of, something might be possible(in their opinion) therefore it was hoaxed. The problems aren't whether it was possible to do this on video in 1969-1972, it's how do you recreate the absurd motion encountered when the speed is altered for gravity.

Horizontal actions are unaffected by gravity. Meaning that whilst you see vertical motion "corrected" from altering playback speed, the horizontal activity is unaffected and looks insanely odd. Some of these EVA sequences were continuous unbroken over 40 minutes (I am not sure the largest time). So the 30 second figure quoted is not even going to come close.

5

The Hoax Theory / NO HOAX - Sand Doesn't Fall Too Fast

« Last post by Mag40 on Today at 02:10:01 PM »

I knew these would come in handy. Here is an animated gif of the famous jump salute.


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.

6

The Hoax Theory / Re: Impossible Film Tech?

« Last post by najak on Today at 02:02:59 PM »

And how many minutes of TV could be stored on a tape? You'd have to switch tapes every minute or so. Perfect sync every time.One fumble and the gig was up. No, not possible.
And no, I don't read any of TBFDU.

I think your fallacy may be the modal scope.  At 15 inches per second, a single reel of quadruplex could record an hour of footage. With no need tape for swapping minute or so.

"TBFDU" - I feel your hurt.   I'm guessing a lot of insult matches happened back-and-forth here, which is unfortunate.  In the end, this is not about egos, but rather "truth". 

I'm planning to write up a summary of what I know so far, inside of a KB (knowledgebase), for your review.  So maybe we can continue this within that context.

Off-the-cuff, one thing that stood out to me, is that the "Chan from the Video Logic Corporation claim that the InSTAR system of 1970 was capable of recording broadcast quality high speed video in B&W and color. "  This seems to contradict Collins' claim that no high speed color video cameras existed during Apollo, which undermines the entire premise of his video.

I find SG Collins to be a rare/unique individual, as he made a whole video where he changed his stance, based upon new information.  Rare these days. 

I believe if SG Collins were still alive, he would, again, concede to being wrong on a very provable point.  We need more people like him in this world.

I should have the KB (Knowledgebase) article drafted for your review within 24 hrs.

7

The Hoax Theory / Re: Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.

« Last post by BertieSlack on Today at 12:17:34 PM »

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?

8

The Hoax Theory / Re: Hoax? - Flag moves without being Touched

« Last post by Allan F on Today at 09:02:06 AM »

Yeah, you're right, I'm sorry. It's just that he's from a forum where that speech has been directed at me a lot.

9

The Hoax Theory / Re: Hoax? - Flag moves without being Touched

« Last post by Kiwi on Today at 08:55:27 AM »

The really good ones can't really be arsed with your infantile blabber. You have NOTHING that hasn't been seen before, and dismissed as nonsense.

Allan: Most of we ApolloHoax long-termers don't talk like that to HBs, which is a fairly rare thing that I've appreciated about his forum for a little over 20 years. (This is about the third or fourth incarnation of the forum, so most membership durations refer to this incarnation only.)

Newer members have recently lowered the standard of debate, and it's a pity that grown-ups would do that. Additionally, the quote at the bottom of your posts implies that you shouldn't talk like that either. If you need a good example, read some of JayUtah's posts. He vigorously attacks erroneous claims about Apollo, but he never uses bad language and never insults other members. That's something we should all do.

10

The Hoax Theory / Re: A few simple questions for conspiracy theorists

« Last post by Allan F on Today at 07:55:29 AM »

@Allan F - who is "TBFDU"?

Your attempted analogy to Apollo 11 is grossly deficient, in that it still offers ZERO explanation for the seemingly impossible claim that the "slow decompression of the cabin" was not only strong enough to move the flag at all, and then AWAY -- but that it was somehow able to magically lasso it to bring it TOWARDS the LEM.   This is the ISSUE -- this feat is IMPOSSIBLE.  Even the mighty Apollo is not permitted to Break Simple Physics -- which they do repeatedly.

Since Apollo can't break physics -- my bias then is to try and "explain it ALL" - but part of that explanation can't be -- "Apollo broke physics, and it's OK."

Apollo didn't "break physics". You are working with a very small subset of reality, which conforms to your delusion. Therefore the observed events don't match up to your expectations.

Now, to document your flag-claim, please use the Apollo picture numbers which are easier to follow, where we can find out exactly WHEN those pictures were taken. If you quote them out of order, your claim is obviously nonsense. Also look up the DAC recordings of the EVA activities. Where you can see the flag setup.