Hoax? - Flag moves without being Touched

[najak]

#1: I disagree with the half time in each period I estimate .6 for the shorter and .4 for the longer so my Avg time will be 5.3 sec.
#2: No tricks here just you inability to understand what occurred.  You lose, again.

#1: Do more math here; you are missing something big.  The distribution isn't "linear" based upon "swing angle" because the "MOST TIME BY FAR" is spent closer to the Apex -- because the travel speed as it gets higher is MUCH slower than it is at the bottom of the swing.   Do the math - this is your proof.

#2: Your inability to demonstrate even the "non-feasibility" of the astronauts simply moving 30% faster than they normally would, as 1.5X looks "very natural" for starters.  2X simply looks a bit rushed.

This whole "proof" rests upon the claim that the 2X movements are "impossible for humans to have done deliberately".  Have you ever watched professional basketball?  Do you think they are all FAKE, because they make "unnatural motions" MUCH faster than these astronauts.

And your proof also requires Apollogetic imagination that you know what these "blobs" are even doing... there are only a few instances where motions are more distinct -- NONE of them are non-feasible.

And once you do the double-pendulum-period math above (assuming the shorter pendulum comprises 60% of the arc, and longer pendulum only 40%) --  It makes it blatantly obvious that this pendulum swing 10% too fast, AND it's amplitude cut-in-half (as would be expected for air resistance).

This example, once again, is evidence of MLH.. due to: (a) pendulum swings too fast (~10%+), and (b) Amplitude cuts in half showing air resistance.

Thank you for playing.  Better luck next time.

[bknight]

#1: I disagree with the half time in each period I estimate .6 for the shorter and .4 for the longer so my Avg time will be 5.3 sec.
#2: No tricks here just you inability to understand what occurred.  You lose, again.

#1: Do more math here; you are missing something big.  The distribution isn't "linear" based upon "swing angle" because the "MOST TIME BY FAR" is spent closer to the Apex -- because the travel speed as it gets higher is MUCH slower than it is at the bottom of the swing.   Do the math - this is your proof.

I'm only doing the same study as you.  Perhaps you think that you can invent stuff?  Which apex, there are two.  Yes the speed is slower at the apexes, faster at the bottom, and???  I did the math on Earth the speed is about twice as fast which would be expected in a 9.8 m/s/s rather than a 1.62 m/s/s.

#2: Your inability to demonstrate even the "non-feasibility" of the astronauts simply moving 30% faster than they normally would, as 1.5X looks "very natural" for starters.  2X simply looks a bit rushed.

According to you anyone else in here like to share their opinion of the astronauts movements?

This whole "proof" rests upon the claim that the 2X movements are "impossible for humans to have done deliberately".  Have you ever watched professional basketball?  Do you think they are all FAKE, because they make "unnatural motions" MUCH faster than these astronauts.

Irrelevant, BB don't have 35lbs. survival gear strapped to their backs.

And your proof also requires Apollogetic imagination that you know what these "blobs" are even doing... there are only a few instances where motions are more distinct -- NONE of them are non-feasible.

Make better sense.

And once you do the double-pendulum-period math above (assuming the shorter pendulum comprises 60% of the arc, and longer pendulum only 40%) --  It makes it blatantly obvious that this pendulum swing 10% too fast, AND it's amplitude cut-in-half (as would be expected for air resistance).

No, if there was any air resistance, the pendulum would have slowed appreciably in those 18 periods covering 85 seconds, you know you used that value.

This example, once again, is evidence of MLH.. due to: (a) pendulum swings too fast (~10%+), and (b) Amplitude cuts in half showing air resistance.

Show your math that you believe sows the speed to be 10% faster.  No the amplitude continues until the tape intersects with another piece of equipment, causing it to stop, not air resistance not your imagination.

Thank you for playing.  Better luck next time.

You haven't put to rest this argument by a long shot so better luck to you next time.

[najak]

You haven't put to rest this argument by a long shot so better luck to you next time.

You still think that if the long pendulum was in effect for 40 deg of the arc angle, this equates to the pendulum spending 40% of the TIME on the long pendulum motion.

This is your proof, and you don't know the math for it.  Do you need me to do this for you?

Your proof also lacks a basis for accurate measurements... 9" makes a difference on the results.  Do the math.  Show your work -- the video shows none of this.

Until then, you have an incomplete proof.

And in the end, your proof resides upon proving that 30% faster-than-normal actions for a few minutes is IMPOSSIBLE.   You are not just proving "this clip is (mostly) consistent with Moon gravity"- but you are claiming that this clip "Proves FAKING IT was IMPOSSIBLE". ... and it falls way short of this..  way short.

[bknight]

You haven't put to rest this argument by a long shot so better luck to you next time.

You still think that if the long pendulum was in effect for 40 deg of the arc angle, this equates to the pendulum spending 40% of the TIME on the long pendulum motion.

Not my equation mine is only an estimate by observing, I didn't think your 50%was accurate.

This is your proof, and you don't know the math for it.  Do you need me to do this for you?

Your proof also lacks a basis for accurate measurements... 9" makes a difference on the results.  Do the math.  Show your work -- the video shows none of this.

I used the values that were in the video, if you dispute them then present your own set, just post what you believe the values you used and why if they differed from the videos, you believe you are correct.

Until then, you have an incomplete proof.

I calculated the times in the exact same manner as you, if you found fault with mine, then yours is faulted.

And in the end, your proof resides upon proving that 30% faster-than-normal actions for a few minutes is IMPOSSIBLE.   You are not just proving "this clip is (mostly) consistent with Moon gravity"- but you are claiming that this clip "Proves FAKING IT was IMPOSSIBLE". ... and it falls way short of this..  way short.

Link to where I said it is IMPOSSIBLE to move faster than normal for short durations.  I doubt that 30% is doable with wearing an A-7 suite with survival gear on your back.
Quit attempting to move the goal post and show how the time is 10% faster.

[najak]

#1: Not my equation mine is only an estimate by observing, I didn't think your 50%was accurate.
#2: I used the values that were in the video, if you dispute them
#3: Link to where I said it is IMPOSSIBLE to move faster than normal for short durations.  I doubt that 30% is doable...

#1: 60/40 is inaccurate.  So the proof is incomplete, and therefore can prove nothing.  This is your proof, and it's incomplete....

#2: The video just pulls states these without substantiation/method.  So if this is the standard, I see the #'s were 1.8 meters (6') and 1m (3'). ..  Now the observed result is 20% too fast.
If you can't be bothered in your OWN PROOF to substantiate the assumed measurements.... I won't either.

#3: Great-- then you just admitted that even if your measurements and bad pendulum math were correct -- it doesn't matter -- because all they had to do was move 30% faster than normal... and in the faked environment, the backpacks are mostly hollow, and suits not heavy duty.  This makes it even easier.

If this SEQ Pendulum cannot prove "this could not have been faked" - then it amounts to nothing.  It simply means that "they faked this one reasonably well -- except for missed the proper timing by about 10-20%, and the amplitude reduces 50%, implicating the presence of air.. but it wasn't too bad of a messup..  it could have been real."   

Proof Failed.

[bknight]

#1: Not my equation mine is only an estimate by observing, I didn't think your 50%was accurate.
#2: I used the values that were in the video, if you dispute them
#3: Link to where I said it is IMPOSSIBLE to move faster than normal for short durations.  I doubt that 30% is doable...

#1: 60/40 is inaccurate.  So the proof is incomplete, and therefore can prove nothing.  This is your proof, and it's incomplete....

#2: The video just pulls states these without substantiation/method.  So if this is the standard, I see the #'s were 1.8 meters (6') and 1m (3'). ..  Now the observed result is 20% too fast.
If you can't be bothered in your OWN PROOF to substantiate the assumed measurements.... I won't either.

#3: Great-- then you just admitted that even if your measurements and bad pendulum math were correct -- it doesn't matter -- because all they had to do was move 30% faster than normal... and in the faked environment, the backpacks are mostly hollow, and suits not heavy duty.  This makes it even easier.

If this SEQ Pendulum cannot prove "this could not have been faked" - then it amounts to nothing.  It simply means that "they faked this one reasonably well -- except for missed the proper timing by about 10-20%, and the amplitude reduces 50%, implicating the presence of air.. but it wasn't too bad of a messup..  it could have been real."   

Proof Failed.

OK I will concede your 50-50.  Now so that we can compute this problem to your stisfaction tell me what the legnths werre?  We know the times and computation should be easy.
I asked yesterday and now repeat   Yesterday you stated ~10%, now it is 20%, which is it in between? pick a number and stick with it.  I stated what the lengths were you ignored my comment, if you would like them again, 1.6 and .9.  If you don't like them pick some that you feel comfortable with.
As for #3, boy you jump to conclusion without reading comprehension.  I indicated to link where I said it was impossible to move faster for short durations, you haven't done that.  Secondly I stated I doubt 30% was doable.

ETA:I'm still awaiting you to show by calculation the time is 10% faster, you might well include 20 % also, you need to get to computing and show your numbers.

[najak]

OK I will concede your 50-50.  Now so that we can compute this problem to your stisfaction tell me what the legnths werre?  We know the times and computation should be easy.
I asked yesterday and now repeat   Yesterday you stated ~10%, now it is 20%, which is it in between? pick a number and stick with it.  I stated what the lengths were you ignored my comment, if you would like them again, 1.6 and .9.  If you don't like them pick some that you feel comfortable with.
As for #3, boy you jump to conclusion without reading comprehension.  I indicated to link where I said it was impossible to move faster for short durations, you haven't done that.  Secondly I stated I doubt 30% was doable.

ETA:I'm still awaiting you to show by calculation the time is 10% faster, you might well include 20 % also, you need to get to computing and show your numbers.

Thanks for engaging in good faith and spirit.   I've updated my doc, final page to show the calculation results:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oHd81jNixxs0rb33a7Tg72YETy7Tk8oJKMkg0zP4_IE/edit?usp=sharing

Pasted here:
If we assume 50/50 here, the average is (4.7 + 6.2) / 2 = 5.45 sec.

Error:
5.45 / 4.8 ⇒ 1.135  (13.5% too fast) using their lengths

Since they gave no basis for measurement:
Let’s assume LONGER… 1.8 meters and 1.0 meter lengths.


Expected period now is: 
6.62 sec, and 4.94 sec,  Moon
2.69 sec and 2.18 sec, Earth

Applying 50/50,the expected Total Period (half of each)
5.78 sec, Moon
2.44 sec, Earth

Error:
5.78 / 4.8 => 1.2042  (20.4% too fast)

==
Given that the pendulum amplitude cuts in half after 18 swings... that implies there's "resistance" (air?)  -- and when a pendulum has resistance, the Period is typically a bit longer.  So if we add 3% to the periods for this "resistance" factor (that is evident) -- it gets even worse for Apollogists and better for MLD's.  (Moon Landing Deniers).

[bknight]

OK I will concede your 50-50.  Now so that we can compute this problem to your stisfaction tell me what the legnths werre?  We know the times and computation should be easy.
I asked yesterday and now repeat   Yesterday you stated ~10%, now it is 20%, which is it in between? pick a number and stick with it.  I stated what the lengths were you ignored my comment, if you would like them again, 1.6 and .9.  If you don't like them pick some that you feel comfortable with.
As for #3, boy you jump to conclusion without reading comprehension.  I indicated to link where I said it was impossible to move faster for short durations, you haven't done that.  Secondly I stated I doubt 30% was doable.

ETA:I'm still awaiting you to show by calculation the time is 10% faster, you might well include 20 % also, you need to get to computing and show your numbers.

Thanks for engaging in good faith and spirit.   I've updated my doc, final page to show the calculation results:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oHd81jNixxs0rb33a7Tg72YETy7Tk8oJKMkg0zP4_IE/edit?usp=sharing

Pasted here:
If we assume 50/50 here, the average is (4.7 + 6.2) / 2 = 5.45 sec.

Error:
5.45 / 4.8 ⇒ 1.135  (13.5% too fast) using their lengths

Since they gave no basis for measurement:
Let’s assume LONGER… 1.8 meters and 1.0 meter lengths.

Expected period now is: 
6.62 sec, and 4.94 sec,  Moon
2.69 sec and 2.18 sec, Earth

Applying 50/50,the expected Total Period (half of each)
5.78 sec, Moon
2.44 sec, Earth

Error:
5.78 / 4.8 => 1.2042  (20.4% too fast)

But both estimations are slower than what would be expected on Earth, so the pendulum is not on Earth regardless of any perceived error and that is precisely the point.  It is happening in a lower gravity than Earth's.

==
Given that the pendulum amplitude cuts in half after 18 swings... that implies there's "resistance" (air?)  -- and when a pendulum has resistance, the Period is typically a bit longer.  So if we add 3% to the periods for this "resistance" factor (that is evident) -- it gets even worse for Apollogists and better for MLD's.  (Moon Landing Deniers).

There is no loss of amplitude and you saying will not make it so. But for the sake of argument, what if you were correct?  The pendulum is still in a lower gravity environment.  That being said a chamber large enough to house the LM would necessarily be transported to this lower gravity place.  What do you think is more obvious the LM is on the moon or the is housed in a large chamber in this lower gravity place?  The answer is rhetorical.
The pendulum stops when interferes with another piece of equipment.
Now do you admit that the pendulum occurred where the gravity is less than 9.8 m/s/s?

[najak]

But both estimations are slower than what would be expected on Earth, so the pendulum is not on Earth regardless of any perceived error and that is precisely the point.  It is happening in a lower gravity than Earth's.

Why is it that you still do not understand the whole premise of MLH theory?   In this case, it's running at about "half frame rate", which fully explains why it would be oscillating at double the pendulum period.

During these few minutes, the astronauts were directed to "move 30% faster than you normally would move".

This Frame rate scaling varies frequently.  There's a whole video put out by an anonymous source (possibly someone who actually KNEW, and would have been charged with Treason for revealing it)... called "Smoke & Mirrors"...   Most times, they were only slowing it to around 80%, and only providing the astronauts with "some lift" to make them look lighter. 

In the MLH theory, the backpacks are mostly empty - light.  The space suits are also lighter.. not 100 lbs.   So on the moon, they are to weigh 60 lbs (360 lbs / 6)........... but in MLH theory, they might only be wearing 30 lbs total... meaning that they weigh  about 200 lbs each.     Many Apollogists don't seem to factor this in either (saying things like "he couldn't move that fast with a 100 lbs on his back!")...

In order to viable argue against MLH, you need to internalize this understanding.... otherwise, you will only be straw manning your opposition.

[bknight]

But both estimations are slower than what would be expected on Earth, so the pendulum is not on Earth regardless of any perceived error and that is precisely the point.  It is happening in a lower gravity than Earth's.

Why is it that you still do not understand the whole premise of MLH theory?   In this case, it's running at about "half frame rate", which fully explains why it would be oscillating at double the pendulum period.

Prove this statement to be true.

During these few minutes, the astronauts were directed to "move 30% faster than you normally would move".

Realistically, just how are going to move 30% faster?  How do they estimate it?

This Frame rate scaling varies frequently.  There's a whole video put out by an anonymous source (possibly someone who actually KNEW, and would have been charged with Treason for revealing it)... called "Smoke & Mirrors"...   Most times, they were only slowing it to around 80%, and only providing the astronauts with "some lift" to make them look lighter. 

Proof of all of this nonsense

In the MLH theory, the backpacks are mostly empty - light.  The space suits are also lighter.. not 100 lbs.   So on the moon, they are to weigh 60 lbs (360 lbs / 6)........... but in MLH theory, they might only be wearing 30 lbs total... meaning that they weigh  about 200 lbs each.     Many Apollogists don't seem to factor this in either (saying things like "he couldn't move that fast with a 100 lbs on his back!")...

Where is the proof of all this?

In order to viable argue against MLH, you need to internalize this understanding.... otherwise, you will only be straw manning your opposition.

Speaking of smoke and mirrors you are still ignoring the fat of the slower speeds of the pendulum than if observed on Earth.  This is your loss.

[Mag40]

But both estimations are slower than what would be expected on Earth, so the pendulum is not on Earth regardless of any perceived error and that is precisely the point.  It is happening in a lower gravity than Earth's.

Why is it that you still do not understand the whole premise of MLH theory?   In this case, it's running at about "half frame rate", which fully explains why it would be oscillating at double the pendulum period.

During these few minutes, the astronauts were directed to "move 30% faster than you normally would move".

This Frame rate scaling varies frequently.  There's a whole video put out by an anonymous source (possibly someone who actually KNEW, and would have been charged with Treason for revealing it)... called "Smoke & Mirrors"...   Most times, they were only slowing it to around 80%, and only providing the astronauts with "some lift" to make them look lighter. 

In the MLH theory, the backpacks are mostly empty - light.  The space suits are also lighter.. not 100 lbs.   So on the moon, they are to weigh 60 lbs (360 lbs / 6)........... but in MLH theory, they might only be wearing 30 lbs total... meaning that they weigh  about 200 lbs each.     Many Apollogists don't seem to factor this in either (saying things like "he couldn't move that fast with a 100 lbs on his back!")...

In order to viable argue against MLH, you need to internalize this understanding.... otherwise, you will only be straw manning your opposition.

Why did you ignore the video I put up? It shows how atmosphere slows down this tape and makes a mockery of your double-speed claim. The atmosphere drastically slows the motion because of air resistance.

Your fudging maths means absolutely nothing. The amplitude simply does not match Earth amplitude no matter what you do to it.

[najak]

Why is it that you still do not understand the whole premise of MLH theory?   In this case, it's running at about "half frame rate", which fully explains why it would be oscillating at double the pendulum period.

Prove this statement to be true.

The fact that I have to prove this you at this point, indicates that for as long as you've been debating MLH as "ridiculous" you haven't yet digested this one VERY CRUCIAL cornerstone of MLH theory.
If you throw an object or swing a pendulum on earth and film it -- then just replay that film at 40% speed... it will behave EXACTLY per the physics of the moon.  It will be non-discernable.

This effect can also be approximated by a combination of factors - such as for the astronauts, you alternatively provide upward lift (via a thin cable) by say 50%, which emulates 1/2 gravity by itself (mostly) -- and then from there, you only need to slow the frame rate to about 60% to approximate Moon gravity (they combine) - -however, if dust rises with the foot, that dust would fall about 70% faster than it should on the moon.

Realistically, just how are going to move 30% faster?  How do they estimate it?

Just approximated is fine.  They practice a few times, get a little coaching/feedback and then get decent at it.  Since there is no "exact measurement for what constitutes natural movement", they merely need to move fast enough that if you sped up the replay to the filmed rate, it would look "unnatural".  Not need for precision on the 30%.  25%-40% will all suffice.

Where is the proof of all this?

The only MLH proof required here is "feasibility".  In the case of the SEQ pendulum, given that "if this were the moon, it would be 13% too fast"... this indicates "things aren't right -- someone is modifying the playback speed".   So -- THIS discrepancy is "evidence", indicating frame rate adjustments were made.

The foundation of MLH theory resides on two things:
1. Showing things that were IMPOSSIBLE (indicating a mess-up on their simulation),  or "a series of things that are very Un-likely"
combined with
2. Showing that faking these things was Feasible.

My main focus on these Theses is on #1, but sometimes falls over into #2 (such as with the replay rate changes, and cable suspension)

[najak]

#1: Why did you ignore the video I put up? It shows how atmosphere slows down this tape and makes a mockery of your double-speed claim. The atmosphere drastically slows the motion because of air resistance.
#2: Your fudging maths means absolutely nothing. The amplitude simply does not match Earth amplitude no matter what you do to it.

#1: I'm juggling a dozen commenters.  You only have one.   I made this point very clearly.  The video you showed chose to put a SMALL (2-ounce?) lock on the end of it.  MASS MATTERS.  If you change this to a 2 lb lead weight - that changes the rate of decay a LOT.   In fact, in the Moon video, we see this amplitude approximately cut-in-half!!  So shows this decay, which could indicate air resistance IS at play.

#2: ... except if you simply speed up their film by 2X -- then it matches Earth's period EXACTLY.  And the only remaining gripes is "these astronauts would then be moving unnaturally fast" (by about 30%).  There isn't much left of your "Apollogy" here....  but the sad part, is that this "Apollogy proof" does more to prove MLH, than Apollogy.

[bknight]

Why is it that you still do not understand the whole premise of MLH theory?   In this case, it's running at about "half frame rate", which fully explains why it would be oscillating at double the pendulum period.

Prove this statement to be true.

The fact that I have to prove this you at this point, indicates that for as long as you've been debating MLH as "ridiculous" you haven't yet digested this one VERY CRUCIAL cornerstone of MLH theory.
If you throw an object or swing a pendulum on earth and film it -- then just replay that film at 40% speed... it will behave EXACTLY per the physics of the moon.  It will be non-discernable.

This effect can also be approximated by a combination of factors - such as for the astronauts, you alternatively provide upward lift (via a thin cable) by say 50%, which emulates 1/2 gravity by itself (mostly) -- and then from there, you only need to slow the frame rate to about 60% to approximate Moon gravity (they combine) - -however, if dust rises with the foot, that dust would fall about 70% faster than it should on the moon.

Realistically, just how are going to move 30% faster?  How do they estimate it?

Just approximated is fine.  They practice a few times, get a little coaching/feedback and then get decent at it.  Since there is no "exact measurement for what constitutes natural movement", they merely need to move fast enough that if you sped up the replay to the filmed rate, it would look "unnatural".  Not need for precision on the 30%.  25%-40% will all suffice.

Where is the proof of all this?

The only MLH proof required here is "feasibility".  In the case of the SEQ pendulum, given that "if this were the moon, it would be 13% too fast"... this indicates "things aren't right -- someone is modifying the playback speed".   So -- THIS discrepancy is "evidence", indicating frame rate adjustments were made.

Firstly learn how to quote properly. 

If you throw an object or swing a pendulum on earth and film it -- then just replay that film at 40% speed... it will behave EXACTLY per the physics of the moon.

But it was filmed live +1.25 second delay at 60 frames per second North American standard.  You are just idly speculating.

Just approximated is fine.  They practice a few times, get a little coaching/feedback and then get decent at it.  Since there is no "exact measurement for what constitutes natural movement", they merely need to move fast enough that if you sped up the replay to the filmed rate, it would look "unnatural".  Not need for precision on the 30%.  25%-40% will all suffice.

Other than idle speculation, you have proof of this?  Has anyone actors or crew stepped forward and corroborated this?  No

The only MLH proof required here is "feasibility".  In the case of the SEQ pendulum, given that "if this were the moon, it would be 13% too fast"... this indicates "things aren't right -- someone is modifying the playback speed".   So -- THIS discrepancy is "evidence", indicating frame rate adjustments were made.

Maybe proof to a bunch of Hoaxtards, but here.  Real proof not speculation.  In short you have no physics denial of this evidense.

[bknight]

#1: Why did you ignore the video I put up? It shows how atmosphere slows down this tape and makes a mockery of your double-speed claim. The atmosphere drastically slows the motion because of air resistance.
#2: Your fudging maths means absolutely nothing. The amplitude simply does not match Earth amplitude no matter what you do to it.

#1: I'm juggling a dozen commenters.  You only have one.   I made this point very clearly.  The video you showed chose to put a SMALL (2-ounce?) lock on the end of it.  MASS MATTERS.  If you change this to a 2 lb lead weight - that changes the rate of decay a LOT.   In fact, in the Moon video, we see this amplitude approximately cut-in-half!!  So shows this decay, which could indicate air resistance IS at play.

That is your own fault, not ours.

#2: ... except if you simply speed up their film by 2X -- then it matches Earth's period EXACTLY.  And the only remaining gripes is "these astronauts would then be moving unnaturally fast" (by about 30%).  There isn't much left of your "Apollogy" here....  but the sad part, is that this "Apollogy proof" does more to prove MLH, than Apollogy.

Let's see "proof by speculation".