Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[Luke Pemberton]

I can help you here. It's a very deliberate and offensive characterisation that goes back some 17 years when sceptics were organised on YouTube.

I posted my very first comment on a YouTube hoax video, and within 30 minutes there was a pile on, orchestrated and co-ordinated by Duane Damon and another character. I was called a paedophile because in their minds Apollo, a mythological Greek God, was a paedophile. The term Apollogist, while a play on words, has a deeper meaning to the YouTube sceptics.

Thanks for the clarification.  What neutral term would you prefer to be called?

I'd prefer "HB" be changed to "MLS" - Moon Landing Skeptic.   Neutral and accurate.

You can call me Luke and I can you najak.

[Mag40]

I want smart minds here to meaningfully discuss, debate, and make progress on the Hoax Theories.  If they are debunkable, I want to see them debunked... quickly.

They've been debunked. You have absolutely nothing new. You ignore evidence and offer absurd replies, you have unanswered questions in the dust thread. I get the feeling your eagerness to promote rehashed bollocks will not be granted until you start answering open and honest questions.

The Apollo 14 flag has been explained. Cabin depressurisation, occurring at all times where we see the flag moving. You have been asked to explain how "some pillock leaving the door open", coincidentally during the cabin depressurisations, better explains it. I must have missed your reply. Do you have a logic failure?

[JayUtah]

Prior to MY work...

No. You had to be dragged kicking and screaming to basic concepts, which you continue to misunderstand. You are not an unsung genius, and you have not solved the problem you raised in this thread. Your claim to have solved the problem with "simple fluid dynamics" is still an open issue. Your unwillingness to participate in ascertaining the correctness of that solution does not amount to a justification for closing the door on it.

The reason I invited A McKelvey (from the stack exchange) here, was to get more physics-minded people here to look at the Hoax Claims -- such as the 9 Flag movements from A14, or the A12 Rendezvous flinging dish pendulum.

But you neglected to tell him you were the one claiming Apollo is a hoax, and that you are likely trying to deceive him into giving you ammunition to support that claim. At best, when you present yourself there with, "Someone please help me, I don't know what I'm doing," and then try here to resume your desired image as a physics master, it rather gives away the plot.

I want smart minds here to meaningfully discuss, debate, and make progress on the Hoax Theories.  If they are debunkable, I want to see them debunked... quickly.

The people here are smart enough to address your claims. Your claims are neither new nor particularly vexing, and do not require additional "progress" to see through. You are neither as smart nor as important as you seem to think you are, nor do you seem to be altruistically motivated.

[LunarOrbit]

I have other matters to bring up next.   And now that I know the Salem-Witch-Trial manner of the magistrates in charge, I'll conduct my future threads accordingly.

I ask the Salem magistrates for permission to bring up my next pieces of evidence for discussion.

I told you that insulting me and calling me names is no way to get what you want. You will show me and the other members of the forum respect or you will be banned permanently.

You have other threads to conclude properly first. But to be perfectly honest, I'm not really interested in anything else you have to say. Go start a blog.

[Jason Thompson]

There are cases where Apollo breaks SIMPLE PHYSICS - and these are my focus.

No, there are not. There are cases where your understanding of the physics doesn't chime with what you see. In such cases by far the simplest explanation is that YOU DON'T FULLY GRASP THE PHYSICS OR THE SITUATION.

Your arguments are along the lines of people insisting on that old chestnut that it's impossible for bumblebees to fly because the aerodynamics don't work. The aerodynamics ALWAYS worked (as is evident from the fact they demonstrably do fly), it was just that for a long time we didn't fully understand exactly how a bumblebee's wings actually moved in flight. The vast majority of people understood that there was a gap in their understanding, not that bumblebees 'broke physics' somehow.

[Jason Thompson]

Hi everyone, I've been loosely following this from the sidelines, but I'll give my best given that lack of depth I have read into this discussion.

The color-sequential cameras operated at 30 frames per second, and were, essentially, black and white cameras, with the Red, Blue, Green color-wheel providing the color information for each field sequentially. And here goes the explanation I did in "Live TV From the Moon".

....

If you attempt to remove fields/frames, you are removing the fluid 30 fps motion.

Fascinating stuff. I've gone down a bit of a rabbit hole of television fields and conversion myself over the years thanks to being a Doctor Who fan and reading about the various formats we have finished early episodes in and how they were made (stored or suppressed field telerecordings, film inserts transferred to videotape masters, out of phase inserts, etc.). All of which means I get twitchy if anyone starts on a simple 'it was a 30fps frame rate' when talking about anything other than an original film recording and playback!

[Luke Pemberton]

Fascinating stuff. I've gone down a bit of a rabbit hole of television fields and conversion myself over the years thanks to being a Doctor Who fan and reading about the various formats we have finished early episodes in and how they were made (stored or suppressed field telerecordings, film inserts transferred to videotape masters, out of phase inserts, etc.). All of which means I get twitchy if anyone starts on a simple 'it was a 30fps frame rate' when talking about anything other than an original film recording and playback!

Phil Karn and I worked on calculating g from the Apollo videos. We got to g = 1.67 +/- 0.3 m/s². Then I arrived here and started reading Dwight's posts. I then understood part of the reason for the variation was possibly due to conversions (and other issues).

It why I like this forum, so many people here know their stuff. The qualified engineers, the enthusiasts, and good people like Gillianren, who by their own admission do not profess to being STEM qualified, but bring a different and equally valuable dimension.

I'm not a big Dr Who fan, sorry. I was when I was a kid, but one episode scared me and I never picked it up again.  I wanted to share that anecdote.

[Jason Thompson]

I'm not a big Dr Who fan, sorry. I was when I was a kid, but one episode scared me and I never picked it up again.  I wanted to share that anecdote.

I'm intrigued, which one was it?

[najak]

You can call me Luke and I can you najak.

We need terms to describe the two generalized sides of this debate:  Moon Landing Believers vs Skeptics.   Those who generally believe we landed, vs. those who generally think we didn't.

Apollogist is a cool name.  If I believed the landings were real, I'd be glad to go by this name.

[najak]

There are cases where Apollo breaks SIMPLE PHYSICS - and these are my focus.

No, there are not. There are cases where your understanding of the physics doesn't chime with what you see. In such cases by far the simplest explanation is that YOU DON'T FULLY GRASP THE PHYSICS OR THE SITUATION.

Your arguments are along the lines of people insisting on that old chestnut that it's impossible for bumblebees to fly because the aerodynamics don't work. The aerodynamics ALWAYS worked (as is evident from the fact they demonstrably do fly), it was just that for a long time we didn't fully understand exactly how a bumblebee's wings actually moved in flight. The vast majority of people understood that there was a gap in their understanding, not that bumblebees 'broke physics' somehow.

Got anything to address the 9 Flag motions of A14?  This one stands undebunked.   Specifically, what could cause those 5 subtle slow movements onto the screen, with a significant hold time?

This one is simple physics, for which no explanation currently exists.  It stands non-debunked.

[Luke Pemberton]

I'm not a big Dr Who fan, sorry. I was when I was a kid, but one episode scared me and I never picked it up again.  I wanted to share that anecdote.

I'm intrigued, which one was it?

I can only describe it, but I have often thought which episode it was.

I am sure that it was an episode with Tom Baker, and someone aged really quickly and/or became a skeleton. I am not confusing this with Indiana Jones, as I remember being sat in the front room in Burntwood.

[Jason Thompson]

Apollogist is a cool name.  If I believed the landings were real, I'd be glad to go by this name.

Good for you, but when people you're applying that name to tell you they find it unacceptable, basic courtesy demands you change it, not double down on it.

[Luke Pemberton]

You can call me Luke and I can you najak.

We need terms to describe the two generalized sides of this debate:  Moon Landing Believers vs Skeptics.   Those who generally believe we landed, vs. those who generally think we didn't.

Apollogist is a cool name.  If I believed the landings were real, I'd be glad to go by this name.

I can't speak for others here, but I guess they'd agree. It is not a tribal issue and we address each other as adults? Yes?

If you want to call me an Apollogist, then do so. I have invited you to call me by my first name, and equally I will be cordial with you. If you don't want to operate on the those terms then called me whatever you want, but I will remain respectful.

[Jason Thompson]

I am sure that it was an episode with Tom Baker, and someone aged really quickly and/or became a skeleton. I am not confusing this with Indian Jones, as I remember being sat in the front room in Burntwood.

That sounds like 'City of Death', and more specifically the cliffhanger to Part Three, in which Professor Kerensky gets caught in his own time experiment by the villain of the piece and ages to a skeleton right before the closing credits crash in. That was broadcast around October 1979 (I was born mid-way through that serial!).

[najak]

Newtonian style physics is taught well beyond 1st year at college. Which is rather the point Jay is making. There is a whole set of physics and math that is taught in STEM subjects at Masters Level and into professional life that is Newtonian. It's just the underlying math gets harder and involves calculus and linear algebra.

BUT.. Newtonian physics is pretty much the ONLY thing taught to high schoolers and Physics 101 in college.  If a Hoax Theory requires math/science beyond the basics, this disqualifies it for being the type of claim that I would champion.  So the more complex Newtonian physics, is also out-of-scope, of what I'd call Simple Physics.  -- F = MA,   and E = F * D, etc.

If Rocket science can't justify the "net force output" - then simple physics shows the failure.   BUT in this case, Static Pressure Thrust at takeoff, DOES suffice to provide a feasible explanation for the added early acceleration.  And if it doesn't, then it requires too much complexity to make this route meaningful.

I'd be interested to see your involvement and ideas surrounding the 8 flag motions of A14 while astronauts are inside the LM.  Care to discuss that one?