Impossible Film Tech?

[Mag40]

@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?

Disagree, pedantic. It is 245%.  However the object may well behave like terrestrial freefall, but the person flinging it will not!

[najak]

@Mag40 going to state it again, clearer again:

My Claim:
1. If you film an astronaut tossing a ball underway at an upward angle of 30 degrees, and it lands 20 feet away.
2. Then if you take that same clip, including the part where he throws it, and simply speed it up by 245%, the entire clip will appear as though he's on Earth, 100%.

Agree or Disagree.   If disagree, be specific on what will be different.

[Mag40]

@Mag40 going to state it again, clearer again:

My Claim:
1. If you film an astronaut tossing a ball underway at an upward angle of 30 degrees, and it lands 20 feet away.
2. Then if you take that same clip, including the part where he throws it, and simply speed it up by 245%, the entire clip will appear as though he's on Earth, 100%.

Agree or Disagree.   If disagree, be specific on what will be different.

I have already told you I disagree and explained why! The object will act the same (requiring more force to do so) but the person throwing it will most certainly look odd. Every horizontal and limb related nuance will be exaggerated.

I have cited the dust flicked by the boot, which requires a 245% speed increase to make it Earth freefall and you have just ignored the last part of that video showing how unnatural their movements are.

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1692807.mpg

[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?

Still awaiting an answer post 38. In addition to the Cernan footage showing the arc at apex, we have at least 2 of the jumps showing dust hitting the surface in sync with his landing.

[najak]

I have already told you I disagree and explained why! The object will act the same (requiring more force to do so) but the person throwing it will most certainly look odd. Every horizontal and limb related nuance will be exaggerated.

I have cited the dust flicked by the boot, which requires a 245% speed increase to make it Earth freefall and you have just ignored the last part of that video showing how unnatural their movements are.

I restated it again, to be sure that you REALLY believe what I think you are saying.  And you confirmed it.  So please be more specific, using #'s and an example.

So in my case of "tossing a ball at 30 degrees 20' away" - on Earth this wouldn't look at ... so film it at 59 FPS.   Then slow it down to 40%, and it just looks like he tossed it more slowly.   What about this 40% speed specifically is going to look "wrong"??  Be specific, use #'s.   Which "Horizontal components of motion" will end up WRONG?

[najak]

@Mag40 - for the "kicking up dust" clip - please tell me the source footage link (and timestamp), and I'll go review the source frames, and give you my assessment.

[najak]

@Mag40 - I found the source clip, but the frame rate is only 10 FPS... not 24.  And the peak is reached by 0.9 seconds, not 1.24 seconds, thus making the gravity be 3 m/s^2, not 1.62.    This could be achieved by 44% slowdown to 56%.

I have no idea where this video gets the idea for a 66% slowdown, nor realizes that the slowdown done for this scene should have just been for the kick... it's not all-or-nothing, using an optical printer.

Plus there are two more issues with this scene:
1. There is evidence of atmosphere by the trailing dust cloud, which happens in atmosphere as the lightest particles get left behind.

2. There is a Clunk sound that happens, which seems like another mistake where sounds from outside the space suit are being picked up by the mic.

Here's the clip I watched, and saved to frames:  (starts at 2:32)
https://youtu.be/kibAjb6qjtQ?t=152

Why does your guy say this is 24 FPS?  Is there another source at 24 FPS, and if so, why link to this 10 FPS from his video?

This isn't a great example to make proofs from, given that it's dust cloud, so harder to determine "peak of parabola" plus it doesn't show the other half of the parabola, so that we can determine if it's a perfect parabola, vs. one hindered by air resistance.

[TippedIceberg]

2. There is a Clunk sound that happens, which seems like another mistake where sounds from outside the space suit are being picked up by the mic.

That seems completely incompatible with your theory.

Why would they add the complexity of recording live synchronized audio if the footage is going to be slowed? Unless they were talking fast, breathing helium... 

[Von_Smith]

2. There is a Clunk sound that happens, which seems like another mistake where sounds from outside the space suit are being picked up by the mic.

That seems completely incompatible with your theory.

Why would they add the complexity of recording live synchronized audio if the footage is going to be slowed? Unless they were talking fast, breathing helium...

I would also like to know *how* they could add pre-recorded audio at all, especially that included Houston's responses.  There were news media and VIPs present at mission control during the Apollo 11 landing; CBS was broadcasting it live.  They could hear and watch Charlie Duke in the flesh talking to Armstrong and Aldrin, and would have noticed had he been reading from a script.   One live stumble from a guy with no acting training during the whole EVA would have given the whole game away.

[Mag40]

@Mag40 - I found the source clip, but the frame rate is only 10 FPS... not 24.

Your powers of observation match your powers of search engine success! I posted a direct NASA link to the clip at the bottom of Post No. 47. This one is 29.97 FPS.

And the peak is reached by 0.9 seconds, not 1.24 seconds, thus making the gravity be 3 m/s^2, not 1.62.

Nope.  One major thing I appreciate about any source is where it takes time to do a detailed explanation. On the video in question it uses a very easy to replicate method and is very accurate. Yours is just your personal statement.

I have no idea where this video gets the idea for a 66% slowdown, nor realizes that the slowdown done for this scene should have just been for the kick... it's not all-or-nothing, using an optical printer.

You have no idea? TBFDU makes this his primary claim!

Plus there are two more issues with this scene:
1. There is evidence of atmosphere by the trailing dust cloud, which happens in atmosphere as the lightest particles get left behind.

One of the most ridiculous anti-physics statements you've made so far. The boot has kicked up a wave of dust that is completely gone in under a second.

2. There is a Clunk sound that happens, which seems like another mistake where sounds from outside the space suit are being picked up by the mic.

I really don't care what "seems" to you or what you think the "clunk" is. Numerous noises occur throughout the transmission at regular intervals, static comes to mind but from many threads before there are many comms-related sounds that occur.

Besides, it takes a total moron to have a live microphone on a piece of footage that is going to be speed altered. Anyone who fails to see that is being dishonest.

Why does your guy say this is 24 FPS?

25 FPS

Is there another source at 24 FPS, and if so, why link to this 10 FPS from his video?

It's bad enough that you fail to see the glaring elephant in the room - that this is an absurd amount of disturbance for an Earth-like flick of the boot - without you not noticing the link provided in post 47.

This isn't a great example to make proofs from, given that it's dust cloud, so harder to determine "peak of parabola" plus it doesn't show the other half of the parabola, so that we can determine if it's a perfect parabola, vs. one hindered by air resistance.

Hand-waving is the tool of the HB. There is a clear height of the wave and the video explains how it is established. The immediate dispersal of the leading half of the parabola shows all is needed regarding air resistance. There are a considerable number of hours of EVA motion that have no visible air resistance in any of them.

Now answer post NO. 38 properly and if you are going to play the physics "guru" show some methodology that stands up to scrutiny. I am assuming you are deliberately going to fudge the figures as much as you can, since you quite definitely are not here to debate with the potential to learn and alter your opinion.

[najak]

I would also like to know *how* they could add pre-recorded audio at all, especially that included Houston's responses.  There were news media and VIPs present at mission control during the Apollo 11 landing; CBS was broadcasting it live.  They could hear and watch Charlie Duke in the flesh talking to Armstrong and Aldrin, and would have noticed had he been reading from a script.   One live stumble from a guy with no acting training during the whole EVA would have given the whole game away.

Good questions.  Do you have a source for your claim that CBS was broadcasting live from the Control room for the entire mission?  (or this specific part?)  There are many unsubstantiated PNA claims that could easily be false, or exaggerated, intended to convey confidence.  So please source it, and I'll record it.

I am capturing ALL good evidence inside of a publicly accessible Knowledgebase (KB), which includes the PNA claims.  100% integrity is the goal of this KB.

The only "dog" I have in this fight is "Truth/Integrity".   If integrity leads me to conclude Apollo was real, I'll be very excited to change my stance, PROUDLY (as the world needs more people who are sincerely wrong, to change their stance when faced with facts/logic that outweigh existing perceived evidence/logic).

So far, I'm seeing too much evidence of the "Impossible" or "Nearly Impossible" category - to accept Apollo's claim that we landed men on the moon.

[najak]

Hand-waving is the tool of the HB. There is a clear height of the wave and the video explains how it is established. The immediate dispersal of the leading half of the parabola shows all is needed regarding air resistance. There are a considerable number of hours of EVA motion that have no visible air resistance in any of them.

Now answer post NO. 38 properly and if you are going to play the physics "guru" show some methodology that stands up to scrutiny. I am assuming you are deliberately going to fudge the figures as much as you can, since you quite definitely are not here to debate with the potential to learn and alter your opinion.

I didn't spend much time on it this one, because it's not a smoking gun for you -- as him just kicking it up 2x faster would produce the same result on earth... Are you saying this is "impossible" for them to slow down this 1.3 seconds of footage?

The MLH theory is that nearly all film is slowed by 10-20%, IIRC, and some slower.

Via Optical printing methods, one mainstream MLH theory, they can vary the playback speed many times, very quickly.

I will put this on my list for deeper analysis.  My cursory look didn't align to their 1.24 second delay (suspiciously perfect for their own point).

We can start a new thread, when I get my feet to the pedals on this specific footage.

If you are going to post a link for me - please label it with bold font and tell me what it is... you gave no indicator of the meaning/content of that link, which I simply didn't notice...

I've got it now, and will include this for later analysis.  Thank you for the references and debate here.

[najak]

@Mag40 - I captured your claim in the KB doc that covers "Dust Falls Too Fast".

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aos6_EqxlNfpLUGoSSemppmw_lUjl0hiby99szCKYi4/edit?usp=sharing

It's on my TODO list.

[Mag40]

I didn't spend much time on it this one, because it's not a smoking gun for you -- as him just kicking it up 2x faster would produce the same result on earth... Are you saying this is "impossible" for them to slow down this 1.3 seconds of footage?

The MLH theory is that nearly all film is slowed by 10-20%, IIRC, and some slower.

Via Optical printing methods, one mainstream MLH theory, they can vary the playback speed many times, very quickly.

I will put this on my list for deeper analysis.  My cursory look didn't align to their 1.24 second delay (suspiciously perfect for their own point).

And once again hand waving away the size of this dust wave. It is a ridiculous height for that to occur on Earth. Did TBFDU do it on one of his videos? No he did not, nor could he. A complete lack of logic and objectivity, no surprise to anyone on this forum.

We can start a new thread, when I get my feet to the pedals on this specific footage.

Do so and I shall report you for spamming the forum. There are plenty of threads opened by you already. We've all seen this before from numerous other HBs.

If you are going to post a link for me - please label it with bold font and tell me what it is... you gave no indicator of the meaning/content of that link, which I simply didn't notice..

You didn't read the post properly. The word NASA in a link under the video was all the clues you needed.

Post 38 please.

[Von_Smith]

I would also like to know *how* they could add pre-recorded audio at all, especially that included Houston's responses.  There were news media and VIPs present at mission control during the Apollo 11 landing; CBS was broadcasting it live.  They could hear and watch Charlie Duke in the flesh talking to Armstrong and Aldrin, and would have noticed had he been reading from a script.   One live stumble from a guy with no acting training during the whole EVA would have given the whole game away.

Good questions.  Do you have a source for your claim that CBS was broadcasting live from the Control room for the entire mission?  (or this specific part?) 

I never said CBS was broadcasting live for the entire mission.  Video of their coverage for the EVA (which was watched by millions of people around the world) still exists and can be found online.  DYOH.