Impossible Film Tech?

[najak]

Collins changed his rhetoric from impossible to not blood likely, with the caveats of all the edits required.  This is not the same as accepting Jarrah's concept.  No you haven't found any possibilities in your willfully ignorant mind set.
Both Kaysing and Rene put forth theories as to why NASA faked Apollo landings on the Moon.  Thos are the ones you need to defend I know the answers as I have read the ideas born of as I said stupidity.  And don't go into "is everything in the Bible accurate"  We are talking about Apollo, stick to the subject at hand and quit hand waving.
Proof of an extraordinary project requires extraordinary evidence, and you have provided non. Wind on the "set" of the Moon?  Sand falling at two fast rate?  How do you measure the sand height/time give me the measurements and how you estimated them.  Oh and the Ascent stage accelerates too fast?  How did you estimate the height to come up with your table?

From what little I know of Kaysing/Rene - their "specific ideas" are outdated -- although I agree with their underlying conclusion that "we didn't land humans on the moon" - I probably find fault in their specific ideas.  Just because someone who believes MLH makes a dumb argument -- doesn't nullify at all the smart arguments.

I'd like to disinvite you from engaging here, because you really aren't qualified to debate as you think you are.  I believe even the PNA smart minds here, might agree.  Your manner of arguing, is poor.

Jarrah made a point - Collins listened and found LEGITIMACY IN IT - calling it a "Good Theory".   I give lots of credit to Collins here.   While people on this site have rejected everything from Jarrah, because it allows them to maintain their (false) PNA faith.

Jarrah makes some very solid, sourced/researched points.   Collins didn't respond to Jarrah's 2nd response, which shows that Collin's 2nd video's entire premise starts with another wrong supposition about the InSTAR not supporting "Color".  This takes the wind out of most of the points Collins says in this 2nd video.

In the end - the Film/Video tech EXISTED, and is especially conceivable for NASA to obtain it before commercialization.

When PNA's use Collin's original video - they are being Dishonest.   While they claim it is only the HB who are dishonest.   This looks like a farce to me.

Please check out -- go ask someone with better qualifications to finish this debate.

[Mag40]

My HB rationale is that "Apollo cannot break physics." - this is impossible.   Yet they have, many times.

Were that the case, numerous physicists would highlight it. Since only HBs do and they most certainly are not physicists your claim is just hot-air.

So I am trying to reconcile this impossibility

Try circular reasoning as your first port of call.

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.

That is simply not the case. Low gravity slows nothing down. All we are seeing is the same force resulting in exaggerated vertical motion. Humans are used to seeing gravity pull things down faster, so the human eye interprets the actions as "slow-motion" but that is a false impression.

In actuality whilst vertical motion appears slower, horizontal does not and neither does the movement of arms largely unaffected by gravity. One of the more obvious things to a physicist is the motion of the dust. When properly analysed there is not a scrap of doubt that the motion is in lower 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.

In that sentence you demonstrate a very poor understanding of basic gravitational motion. The issue is not that both vectors are slowed down but that only the vertical component needs to be. It's why when objects thrown are played back at an adjusted Terrestrial freefall the astronaut looks somewhat like Charlie Chaplain.
I suspect you will not watch this:-

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

Your understanding is flawed.

@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.

I neither accept your insincere "apology" or your insinuation. We shall see who is "over their head". I suspect you are not going to alter a single claim whatever argument you receive.

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

Try not to patronise people when you don't understand the subject.

[najak]

Mag40 - seriously, go get someone who really understands physics.

THIS is part of the reason I find it pertinent to set the record straight on Apollo.   Because the faked Apollo is being justified by very bad proofs, that are FALSE.

You don't know this because you must suck at physics.

TRUTH - if you do launch a projectile on earth and film it.  Then slow that film to 40.658% speed for replay -- it will work out EXACTLY as it would on the Moon.  EXACTLY.

This video saying otherwise is MORONIC.

Here's a calculator page, for projectile distance that you can test the theory with:

https://byjus.com/projectile-motion-calculator/

First enter for the Earth -- vel 59 m/s, gravity 9.8, at 45 degrees -- projectile lands 355 meters away, taking 8.5 seconds
Then slow it down to 40% and do it on the Moon:   Vel = 24 m/s, gravity 1.62, at 45 degrees -- and AGAIN it lands 355 meters AWAY, taking 21 seconds (2.5x longer!)

So if you simply slow down the Earth film to 40% speed, it will follow the same trajectory path as the moon example, and the SAME TIME, 21 seconds!  EXACTLY THE SAME!

It follows the EXACT SAME TRAJECTORY.

If you care about physics/truth, please study this more..  What I'm saying here is BASIC PHYSICS TRUTH.

Please go study this equation a bit, and learn how it works. Then you'll see that whoever made that video for PNA's was either inept at Physics, or dishonest (wanting to defend the Apollo Faith no matter what).

[Mag40]

Mag40 - seriously, go get someone who really understands physics.

I suggest you drop your distasteful and rather childish attitude.

THIS is part of the reason I find it pertinent to set the record straight on Apollo.   Because the faked Apollo is being justified by very bad proofs, that are FALSE.

You aren't setting anything straight.

You don't know this because you must suck at physics.

And more of the childish retorts.

TRUTH - if you do launch a projectile on earth and film it.  Then slow that film to 40.658% speed for replay -- it will work out EXACTLY as it would on the Moon.  EXACTLY.

That's just so ignorant. The object will be "airborne" 2.45 times longer and be carrying the same inertia. It will thus travel much further on the Moon. 

This video saying otherwise is MORONIC.

This is just hot air and bare assertion.

Here's a calculator page, for projectile distance that you can test the theory with:

Some of us don't need google and you are using a wrong calculator.

First enter for the Earth -- vel 59 m/s, gravity 9.8, at 45 degrees -- projectile lands 355 meters away, taking 8.5 seconds
Then slow it down to 40% and do it on the Moon:   Vel = 24 m/s, gravity 1.62, at 45 degrees -- and AGAIN it lands 355 meters AWAY, taking 21 seconds (2.5x longer!).

I'm finding it hard to convey this to you without being rude, but you really don't know what you are doing.

The calculator is quantifying two components. Did you seriously not notice that in the lunar example the velocity has been changed to accommodate the same distance? Of course the two are going to be the same, the calculator has dropped the initial force to do that.

Now suppose you address that video, without the attitude and explain how on Earth a gigantic wave of dust does that on Earth with a tiny sideways flick of a boot.

It follows the EXACT SAME TRAJECTORY.

Only when you lower the initial force.

Please go study this equation a bit, and learn how it works.

Back at you. Go find one that does it like for like.

[Mag40]

I have a simple question for najak, please answer it:

From your "document": "However, the “dust” beneath his feet which rises at the same speed with his boots, falls to the ground while he’s still at the peak of his jump."

Do you understand that any object (air resistance excluded) will rise to apex in the same time as it takes to subsequently fall back down?

[najak]

@Mag40 wrote: "Now suppose you address that video, without the attitude and explain how on Earth a gigantic wave of dust does that on Earth with a tiny sideways flick of a boot."

Simple - whatever you saw on the film actually happened at 2.4x that speed - so it was a fast kick... 2.4x faster than what you saw.  On Earth, this would produce the same exact trajectory path as what you saw.  This is how physics works with gravity.   Do you question the "trajectory equation"?    Horizontal/Vertical motion components will match EXACTLY... only time is changed.. by a factor of 2.4x.

If you don't get this, you don't get basic physics, and my retorts are accurate.


You wrote: "Do you understand that any object (air resistance excluded) will rise to apex in the same time as it takes to subsequently fall back down?"
Yes, this is 100% true.  It's parabolic motion, with no (or nominal) air resistance.

What in my physics thinking do you disagree with?  Why do you think the basic "projectile" equation does not fully apply to "projectile dust"??

[bknight]

Collins changed his rhetoric from impossible to not blood likely, with the caveats of all the edits required.  This is not the same as accepting Jarrah's concept.  No you haven't found any possibilities in your willfully ignorant mind set.
Both Kaysing and Rene put forth theories as to why NASA faked Apollo landings on the Moon.  Thos are the ones you need to defend I know the answers as I have read the ideas born of as I said stupidity.  And don't go into "is everything in the Bible accurate"  We are talking about Apollo, stick to the subject at hand and quit hand waving.
Proof of an extraordinary project requires extraordinary evidence, and you have provided non. Wind on the "set" of the Moon?  Sand falling at two fast rate?  How do you measure the sand height/time give me the measurements and how you estimated them.  Oh and the Ascent stage accelerates too fast?  How did you estimate the height to come up with your table?

From what little I know of Kaysing/Rene - their "specific ideas" are outdated -- although I agree with their underlying conclusion that "we didn't land humans on the moon" - I probably find fault in their specific ideas.  Just because someone who believes MLH makes a dumb argument -- doesn't nullify at all the smart arguments.

I'd like to disinvite you from engaging here, because you really aren't qualified to debate as you think you are.  I believe even the PNA smart minds here, might agree.  Your manner of arguing, is poor.

Jarrah made a point - Collins listened and found LEGITIMACY IN IT - calling it a "Good Theory".   I give lots of credit to Collins here.   While people on this site have rejected everything from Jarrah, because it allows them to maintain their (false) PNA faith.

But he did not say Jarrah was correct he said it didn't bloody well happen, major difference

Jarrah makes some very solid, sourced/researched points.   Collins didn't respond to Jarrah's 2nd response, which shows that Collin's 2nd video's entire premise starts with another wrong supposition about the InSTAR not supporting "Color".  This takes the wind out of most of the points Collins says in this 2nd video.

In your mind it may have but in reality, Jarrah didn't respond to the massive amounts of editing the must be accomplished, did he?
You mentioning color is a red herring, nothing more or less.

In the end - the Film/Video tech EXISTED, and is especially conceivable for NASA to obtain it before commercialization.

Show me where Collins said that films could not be edited.  You are being dishonest, not Collins

When PNA's use Collin's original video - they are being Dishonest.   While they claim it is only the HB who are dishonest.   This looks like a farce to me.

Please check out -- go ask someone with better qualifications to finish this debate.

You may want all you wish, but as long as you are spouting nonsense I'll correct you.

[najak]

@bknight - wrote: "show me where Collins said..."

https://youtu.be/-TelJ75pzP4?t=305

He is no longer calling it "impossible".   If you watch Jarrah's 2nd rebuttal video, he describes where Collins was wrong (and is sourced) and also how Collins' belief that "it would be hard" is also overstated.

Collins first video says "Impossible"...  his second video retracts that stance.   Showing his first video without that disclaimer is DISHONEST.  If you have to Lie to make your case -- that doesn't bode well for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_x49lImzw5s

[Mag40]

Simple - whatever you saw on the film actually happened at 2.4x that speed - so it was a fast kick... 2.4x faster than what you saw.

You are being ridiculous. There is no way anyone kicks up a dust wave like that with a casual flick of the boot. In addition the speed of the activity when adjusted to make it at terrestrial freefall is like Charlie Chaplain.

This is how physics works with gravity.   Do you question the "trajectory equation"?

No, only your poor understanding of it.

Horizontal/Vertical motion components will match EXACTLY... only time is changed.. by a factor of 2.4x.

Nonsense. To achieve the same distance the force needs to change. You ignored where I highlighted your failure to understand this. When you patronise people then make simple blunders, it isn't a great look.

You wrote: "Do you understand that any object (air resistance excluded) will rise to apex in the same time as it takes to subsequently fall back down?"
Yes, this is 100% true.  It's parabolic motion, with no (or nominal) air resistance.

Then in that one sentence you prove the clips being highlighted are in low gravity.

What in my physics thinking do you disagree with?  Why do you think the basic "projectile" equation does not fully apply to "projectile dust"??

Your "physics thinking" misses the totally obvious.

Very obviously and confirmed by you, the dust wave on the Cernan jump rises to boot level at apex. It doesn't matter what subsequently happens with the dust visibility. Once we have established that the arc is at boot level (and it is) and that it's there at apex (also confirmed) the laws of physics puts it there in line with gravitational motion.

Very obviously the Young jump shows a nice little parabola rising in perfect sync and height with his boots. The same irrefutable conclusion applies.

Any reasonably competent physics student will understand this. Do you?

[bknight]

Since reading is apparently beyond your limited set of skills, my comment "Show me where Collins said that films could not be edited."  Liking a whole video is a poor response.  I have already submitted that Collins changed from impossible to not bloody likely, that does not indicate that Collins accepts Jarrah's argument completely.

[najak]

Since reading is apparently beyond your limited set of skills, my comment "Show me where Collins said that films could not be edited."  Liking a whole video is a poor response.  I have already submitted that Collins changed from impossible to not bloody likely, that does not indicate that Collins accepts Jarrah's argument completely.

Never said he accepts it completely.  I would have liked to see his response to Jarrah's 2nd response, where he offers a few more corrections.  Jarrah's rebuttal and explanations are well-sourced and reasonable.

Anyone who continues to post Collins' original video without clear disclaimer - is being dishonest.

[Mag40]

Anyone who continues to post Collins' original video without clear disclaimer - is being dishonest.

Don't lecture people on dishonesty.

Answer post no. 38 just above and do so honestly. If you claim anyone can flick dust like that on Earth, that high, that fast with just a casual boot motion, then you are being dishonest. If you looked at the boot flick in full context with the footage before and after, adjusted for terrestrial freefall, then claimed it looked normal, you are being even more dishonest.

[najak]

Don't lecture people on dishonesty.

Answer post no. 38 just above and do so honestly. If you claim anyone can flick dust like that on Earth, that high, that fast with just a casual boot motion, then you are being dishonest. If you looked at the boot flick in full context with the footage before and after, adjusted for terrestrial freefall, then claimed it looked normal, you are being even more dishonest.

Not Lecturing - but accurately labeling the behavior.   When those same people gripe about HB's being dishonest - -this makes them hypocrites as well.   (lots of hypocrites on both sides of this debate)

Please post to me a link to the SOURCE video for the kicked dust... (from the Surface Journal) - and I'll do a frame by frame analysis, and give you my assessment.

Have you conceded now that the Projectile Equation produces IDENTICAL results on both Earth and Moon, by simply slowing the initial velocity of each projectile to 40%?  I'd like to make sure we got this one out of the way, and that we're now on the same page.

[Mag40]

Please post to me a link to the SOURCE video for the kicked dust... (from the Surface Journal) - and I'll do a frame by frame analysis, and give you my assessment.

Yet you already claimed it was normal! The video description details the source. I've seen your "analysis" of the John Young jump and the Cernan jumps and they miss the obvious time to apex problem. You can only deny this from a place of dishonesty.

These two clips prove on their own that the footage is in lower gravity.

Have you conceded

Don't weasel out of your blunder. You input 2 variables into an online calculator and screwed up with your conclusion. The trajectories will never be the same. With lower gravity distance increases due to extended time. If you put the two at the same distance (which you did), then the initial force must change.

now that the Projectile Equation produces IDENTICAL results on both Earth and Moon, by simply slowing the initial velocity of each projectile to 40%?

If you alter the time to reflect terrestrial gravity, the force must be increased accordingly - the very large problem. Nobody has disputed it, just your understanding of what it means.

I'd like to make sure we got this one out of the way, and that we're now on the same page.

You're on the page that inspects obvious lunar footage and misses physics-related clues that any student would see.

[najak]

@Mag40 - OK - I'll lay it out very clearly, so you can agree or disagree, once again:

My claim:
1. If you see a filmed projectile launched on the moon, and verify it's all behaving according to lunar gravity.
2. Then if you simply take that same clip, and speed it to 250%, it will now behave EXACTLY as if it's within Earth's gravity.

Agree or disagree?