Hoax? - Lunar Launches - Too Fast

[JayUtah]

I know the Rendezvous footages were 6 FPS, which enabled them to film for 15 minutes instead of 3.8 minutes.

That explains why they appear jerky to you. You're seeing the action sped up.

[najak]

Again you're simply demanding that the answer be given according to your rules. I have explained my reasons for not doing that. I take it you have un-resigned from the thread. However we are still bogged down in remediating your befuddled understanding for how rockets work. Any answer I give, and any way I give it, will be ineffective until you can demonstrate a proper understanding of the problem.

I'm not demanding anything.  I'm simply documenting the "absence" of such a presentation.  If you don't want to provide this "first time ever gift to the world" using your unassailable credentials, please do so.  You will be debunking a currently non-debunked 40+ year MLH claim.   We can give you a medal.   Please do it, for the sake of humanity.

[najak]

That explains why they appear jerky to you. You're seeing the action sped up.

Correct, this makes them look extra jerky.  But this is a DIFFERENT TOPIC.  I plan to present this to you soon, within context of a dedicated thread.

[Mag40]

That explains why they appear jerky to you. You're seeing the action sped up.

Correct, this makes them look extra jerky.  But this is a DIFFERENT TOPIC.  I plan to present this to you soon, within context of a dedicated thread.

OMG, he's playing HB Bingo! Where's the card, we need to get it out!

[Mag40]

I say again, anyone who looks at that and simply tries to claim it is faked is delusional. When you watch this on a large screen, such as a smart TV, you can see Schmitt throwing his hammer and it glints in the sky a short while after. So yes. I am saying that in 1972 nobody could manufacture an absolutely identical set with humans on that then, in continuous footage magically became the "lunar launch set".

You are free to make this claim.

And you are free to run away from it with hand waving and unscientific bollocks. To claim that those two scenes are different and that one has had astronauts added is just stupid beyond words. It's exactly what HBs do, they cry fake at things that are just obviously not fake.

Yes, I'm free to make my fully substantiated claim, it renders this whole thread moot!

Now suppose you explain with more than what you have thus far supplied (sweet FA) how on Earth they do those scenes and logically why the hell even bother doing it.

It is perfection. Schmitt chucks a hammer and we see it glinting in the air. He's next to the same LM that shortly after launches off of the lunar surface.

Likewise, I'm saying that:

Instead of posturing like the character Golum in LOTR, just before he falls into the lava, why don't you drop your attitude and learn from an expert. Your whole claim of some sort of equilibrium in this series of debates is horrifically misguided. You are finding these piddly little things "wrong" with what you see and think they outweigh the vast body of evidence across every aspect of every mission.

To paraphrase Dara Ó Briain - some eejit who pulls his tooth out with a piece of string tied to a door, doesn't get to argue with a professor of dentistry!

[JayUtah]

I'm not demanding anything.  I'm simply documenting the "absence" of such a presentation.

You're "documenting" the purported absence of a response in the particular way you insist the question be answered, which is a straw man. In fact you are being given a response, but in a way that prevents you from sidestepping it. Therefore you are ignoring it. And unfortunately that response is on hold until we remediate your incorrect expectations on which your question and your periodic attempts at rebuttal are based. That you wish to skip being educated does not oblige others to forge ahead in vain.

When it became clear that you intended a Gish gallop, the moderator wisely restricted you from opening additional distractive threads. When it became clear you intended to shift the burden of proof and then sidestep the answers, I chose a method of answering your questions to prevent you from doing that. Now is when you get to choose whether you're interested in what really happened or whether you're interested only in fanciful coup counting.

[LunarOrbit]

OMG, he's playing HB Bingo! Where's the card, we need to get it out!

https://apollohoax.net/bingo/ 

[Mag40]

Basically "100% integrity" or this kind of crap:

As we can see, even a weak/invalid argument works even for smart people, when that argument helps confirm their beliefs.

@Allan Folmerson - promised me smart scientific minds here.   So far, I'm not sensing it.   Where are the good scientists here, who understand high school physics concepts, at minimum?

I'm not sensing any "secret wisdom" yet.  Your logic skills seem insufficient for this debate.

Can you summon someone with a sufficient science background?  I really feel like I came knocking at the door, and the children have answered the door.   I just want to say "can you go get your dad for me?"

I really really want to talk with someone who's qualified for this debate.  You simply aren't it.   It's ok -- most aren't.  I'm hoping that someone here is qualified.   Please summon them.

Is there anyone here who think there is any integrity in defending this "spun circles" explanation?  We can put an "I suck at physics" dunce cap on them.
The smartest guys will avoid me, because they don't want to fight this losing battle.  They can't defend Apollo Breaking Physics.

Again, it seems I'm dealing with people here who do not understand basic simple high school physics.  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.

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.

So as you advised, Mr. Scientist, it's time to change your hypothesis/theory, to match the actual evidence.

[JayUtah]

Correct, this makes them look extra jerky.

And just how were you able to extract the original motion from the 6 fps record such that you could make the determination that it looks impossibly jerky even without the slow frame rate? You seem to be offering an opinion on data that does not exist.

But this is a DIFFERENT TOPIC.

Sure, but you brought it up in this thread.

[najak]

But this is a DIFFERENT TOPIC.

Sure, but you brought it up in this thread.

It was "off topic" and as with other things "brought up that are off topic" you shut them down, and push them to an appropriate thread.  This is a BIG presentation, and I can understand why you'd not want to provide a separate thread for discussing it.

[JayUtah]

It was "off topic" and as with other things "brought up that are off topic" you shut them down, and push them to an appropriate thread.  This is a BIG presentation, and I can understand why you'd not want to provide a separate thread for discussing it.

You brought it up in this thread. It's being discussed in this thread. No one but you is declaring it off-topic. No one is trying to move it to a separate thread.

You seem to be able to render an opinion on the original motion of an object captured at 6 fps, to the point of declaring it to be suspiciously jerky. Care to tell us what analysis you did to arrive at that conclusion?

[najak]

I'm not demanding anything.  I'm simply documenting the "absence" of such a presentation.

You're "documenting" the purported absence of a response in the particular way you insist the question be answered...

This MLH claim is 40+ years old, and has NEVER been answered - in ANY particular way.  That is what I'm documenting.

This isn't a niche claim -- and no one has been able to debunk it yet.  Yet YOU claim to be able to do what others could NOT do, but refuse to show us.  I'll document this as well.

Please give the world this gift, that ONLY YOU can do -- apparently. .. so you claim.

My thesis in this Thread is complete - and remains UNCHALLENGED (by your own choice):
"The AM Launch footages show motions that occurs at ~2.5X the engine's rated acceleration, requiring an added steady ~70% boost for a full 1 second.  And that as of yet, over the last 40 years, no one seems to have EVER given a viable mathematical explanation for this inordinately high acceleration."

[najak]

You brought it up in this thread. It's being discussed in this thread. No one but you is declaring it off-topic. No one is trying to move it to a separate thread.

I'm the OP.  This is off-topic.   It has NOTHING TO DO WITH "LUNAR LAUNCHES - TOO FAST".

You apparently find this topic very interesting...  so why would you be so opposed (scared?) to allow a new thread to cover it?

[LunarOrbit]

You brought it up in this thread. It's being discussed in this thread. No one but you is declaring it off-topic. No one is trying to move it to a separate thread.

I'm the OP.  This is off-topic.   It has NOTHING TO DO WITH "LUNAR LAUNCHES - TOO FAST".

You apparently find this topic very interesting...  so why would you be so opposed (scared?) to allow a new thread to cover it?

You're not the moderator. I am. I'm allowing it because it has already been discussed in this thread, including BY YOU the OP.

[JayUtah]

This MLH claim is 40+ years old, and has NEVER been answered - in ANY particular way.

False. Your expectations are predicated on a simplistic understanding of the problem. You were given a list of the factors you did not consider and the initial basis for their relevance. You refused to consider them except to shift the burden of proof and ask additional questions. I am in the process of answering those additional questions, but you are impatient with the method I have followed. That is not my problem, as I have explained why I am proceeding as I am and you have not addressed those reasons except to bemoan them.

That is what I'm documenting.

No, you are misleadingly saying no proof exists because the proof is not unfolding in the way you desire. You are unwilling to address the rebuttal that has existed for quite some time, and you are unwilling to participate in further investigation.

Please give the world this gift, that ONLY YOU can do -- apparently. .. so you claim.

I made no such claim.

My thesis in this Thread is complete - and remains UNCHALLENGED...

False. It is being challenged in a way that does not meet your approval, ostensibly because it requires you to do some due diligence and other work, and it follows a process designed to prevent you from sidestepping the final result as you have done in other threads.

Your thesis is based on a simplistic model of the spacecraft behavior, which you finally justified only by a reference to Google AI and to the Big Book of Rockets. We will need to correct your misunderstandings as a part of the process of answering your questions, so that you will not mistakenly reject an answer out of ignorance.