Author Topic: Impossible Film Tech?  (Read 2855 times)

Offline najak

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 807
Re: Impossible Film Tech?
« Reply #60 on: November 26, 2024, 07:40:39 PM »
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.
OK - so you are only talking then about the footage that NASA broadcast via satellite, which then was re-broadcast by CBS.  This I knew about.

I thought you were claiming "CBS live TV coverage of the control room" -- in the same room with the CAPCOM, Charlie Duke.  This would have been news to my rookie ears.

Offline Mag40

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: Impossible Film Tech?
« Reply #61 on: November 27, 2024, 10:55:23 AM »
When can we expect an answer to this?
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2018.msg57816#msg57816

And don't complain about too much to do - you raised all these useless threads.

That's Cernan at apex with a clear dust wave.
Young rising to apex with a clear parabola.
The dust being flicked at a ridiculous height and showing perfect lunar freefall, no dust suspension.

All I'm seeing from you is a lot of obfuscation, evasive behaviour, patronising, insults and Gollum-like excitation about your "observations" that have been exhaustively discussed over the last 15 years.


Offline najak

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 807
Re: Impossible Film Tech?
« Reply #62 on: November 27, 2024, 03:11:51 PM »
1. That's Cernan at apex with a clear dust wave.
2. Young rising to apex with a clear parabola.
3. The dust being flicked at a ridiculous height and showing perfect lunar freefall, no dust suspension.

1. "dust at apex" - In an atmosphere, the boot leaves a temporal vacuum suction in it's wake (you are aware of this fact, yes).   This temporary vacuum only lasts a very short time, but this suction effect pulls the dust upwards as the boot rises.  As the boot reaches apex, it's upward velocity slows, and the vacuum effect instantly dissipates, leaving that dust to fall at earth gravity.  While the Cernan falls slower due to partial suspension.  This is what would be EXPECTED to be seen on earth, per MLH theory.

The dust falling from apex too fast, is the damning evidence here.  This is IMPOSSIBLE on the moon.   The "Hippity" clip supports MLH, not PNA.

2. "parabola" - why use this term?  Parabola's are the same shape on moon and earth, with a 2.4X speed difference, that's all.
I assume you are talking about the "faint dust" that appears on YOUR gif (but NOT the one from NASA's own site)...  But let's assume YOUR source is accurate -- we see at 4-5 frames after liftoff, that there is a patch of dust that STARTED moving upwards at a FASTER rate.... this of course may end up hitting apex at around the same time as John.   Additionally, in atmosphere, the lighter dust experiences more air resistance, which also slows it's falling a bit -- also giving you this effect.

3. 4 ft high is not "ridiculous amount".  Since we can't see the fall, we have less idea about suspensions.  This is a Half-parabola, giving us less physics to analyze.  BUT the full clip is explained by him simply kicking his leg twice as hard as you thought he did.   This is a feasible and reasonable MLH theory.

Keep trying.

Offline Bryanpoprobson

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 839
  • Another Clown
Re: Impossible Film Tech?
« Reply #63 on: November 27, 2024, 03:29:26 PM »
Again a Vacuum does not suck, it is not a force.
"Wise men speak because they have something to say!" "Fools speak, because they have to say something!" (Plato)

Offline najak

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 807
Re: Impossible Film Tech?
« Reply #64 on: November 27, 2024, 03:53:20 PM »
Again a Vacuum does not suck, it is not a force.
Correct, but the PSI of earth's atmosphere is a 14 PSI force.  So when the boot leaves the ground, the PSI beneath the dust pushes it upwards.  So when you talk "force of a vacuum" we're simply referring to the atmosphere pressure IMBALANCE...   Did you think I really didn't know this?

It's nice to meet you.  I hope you'll be participating in this debate too.  For "vacuum" let's change that over to the appropriate thread...  THIS thread is about "film/video tech".

Offline Mag40

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: Impossible Film Tech?
« Reply #65 on: November 27, 2024, 03:54:09 PM »
1. "dust at apex" - In an atmosphere, the boot leaves a temporal vacuum suction in it's wake (you are aware of this fact, yes).
It's mainly friction.
Quote
This temporary vacuum only lasts a very short time, but this suction effect pulls the dust upwards as the boot rises.  As the boot reaches apex, it's upward velocity slows, and the vacuum effect instantly dissipates, leaving that dust to fall at earth gravity.
Nope - mainly friction. I specifically posted a gif of volleyball on the beach and the same sandy colour against a sandy background shows the same thing. Earth gravity has the dust disappearing instantly in the same irrelevant way. Just because it's harder to see doesn't mean a thing.

Quote
While the Cernan falls slower due to partial suspension.  This is what would be EXPECTED to be seen on earth, per MLH theory.
That is just bollocks. The dust impacts simultaneously with his feet touching the ground on 3 successive jumps. Should I fetch where you said it was sliding along the ground?

Quote
The dust falling from apex too fast, is the damning evidence here.  This is IMPOSSIBLE on the moon.   The "Hippity" clip supports MLH, not PNA.
Grey on grey and a poor quality video. The only damning thing is your persistent obfuscation. What you can or cannot observe with the conditions present is totally irrelevant.

Once more your evasion on this matter is noted and starting to deliberately irritate now.
That's Cernan at apex with a clear dust wave.

The dust reaches apex at the same time as he does. Time up = time down. Which part of that confuses you?

Quote
2. "parabola" - why use this term?  Parabola's are the same shape on moon and earth, with a 2.4X speed difference, that's all.
Because it is a parabola. Because it is visible. Because it reaches apex in a beautifully consistent synchronised motion with his jump.

Quote
I assume you are talking about the "faint dust" that appears on YOUR gif (but NOT the one from NASA's own site)
You are lying. The dust parabola is visible on every NASA version.
Quote
But let's assume YOUR source is accurate -- we see at 4-5 frames after liftoff, that there is a patch of dust that STARTED moving upwards at a FASTER rate.
And once again with the diversion avoiding the issue. My source is 100% accurate and if you suggest it has been doctored or any other HB lie along those lines, than people will start to see your true nature.
Quote
this of course may end up hitting apex at around the same time as John.
Rubbish, it is a blob on your crusty copy of the footage! Most of the dust travels forward. Once more you avoid points I have raised. If you think I am suddenly going to let you away with this, think again.
Quote
Additionally, in atmosphere, the lighter dust experiences more air resistance, which also slows it's falling a bit -- also giving you this effect.
And not visible on the volleyball clip! All diversion from the main point.

Quote
3. 4 ft high is not "ridiculous amount".
Of course it is! So is the distance involved.
Quote
Since we can't see the fall, we have less idea about suspensions.
Nonsense, we see no suspension at all on the leading section of the event.
Quote
This is a Half-parabola, giving us less physics to analyze.
Irrelevant in the extreme. We have enough to analyse it by height, projected distance and force.
Quote
BUT the full clip is explained by him simply kicking his leg twice as hard as you thought he did.   This is a feasible and reasonable MLH theory.
There is nothing reasonable about this it all. I do not believe you think that. No honest physicist would look at that totally weird looking dust wave and conclude it looks Earth-like.

I'm still waiting for you to expand on your bare assertion about the time. I've done a manual check and his figures are spot on.
Quote
Keep trying.
Keep running away from the evidence. The game is up and you've been here less than a week. Your credibility is now in question since you are clearly evading the obvious on 3 separate matters. Smart people show they are smart by their actions not by bragging about it whilst showing they aren't.


John Young Jump
1. There is a nice parabolic arc of dust in perfect sync with his jump and the same height. Time up = Time down.
2. Disipation is irrelevant grey on grey on poor grainy video.
3. We clearly see shaded areas on the ground moving forwards away from Young.

Gene Cernan Bunny Hops
1. There is a nice parabolic arc of dust level with his boot. Time up = Time down.
2. Disipation is irrelevant grey on grey on poor grainy video.
3. We clearly see 3 impact areas on the ground for each of the last 3 jumps.

Dust Sideways kick
1. The height of this wave is just plain wrong for a little boot flick.
2. The distance requires >7m per second force with a sideways kick? That's ridiculous.
3. No dust suspension, no matter what you claim.
4. Adjusted for gravity without the unsubstantiated, unproven selective magic speed video, the astronauts look extremely unnatural.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2024, 03:57:16 PM by Mag40 »

Offline najak

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 807
Re: Impossible Film Tech?
« Reply #66 on: November 27, 2024, 04:12:13 PM »
Keep running away from the evidence. The game is up and you've been here less than a week. Your credibility is now in question since you are clearly evading the obvious on 3 separate matters. Smart people show they are smart by their actions not by bragging about it whilst showing they aren't.
I've addressed your "evidence" head on every time.  Your tone, integrity and approach here matches what you did with the "Flag was hit by the PLSS" declaration of victory. (where you were 100% wrong)

"Friction" doesn't provide much upward force, but a vacuum does.

"Rise time = fall time" is FALSE when the rise involves ongoing vacuum force pulling it into the wake of the boot.  (a force not present on the moon)

Perhaps one of your PNA friends will (again) police your conclusions here, for me.   Maybe you'll listen to them.

I ask that you incorporate the "vacuum" force into your arguments.  If you don't, then it is YOU who are "running from the evidence/science".

Offline najak

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 807
Re: Impossible Film Tech?
« Reply #67 on: November 27, 2024, 04:15:32 PM »
I summon the trustworthy @Zakalwe, to see if he sees any faults with @Mag40's logic here?

Offline Mag40

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: Impossible Film Tech?
« Reply #68 on: November 27, 2024, 04:45:42 PM »
I've addressed your "evidence" head on every time.
A lie. You continue to avoid it and offer diversion.
Quote
Your tone, integrity and approach here matches what you did with the "Flag was hit by the PLSS" declaration of victory. (where you were 100% wrong).
I have the honesty and integrity to admit that. You simply do not.
Quote
"Friction" doesn't provide much upward force, but a vacuum does.
Clueless. The lunar surface is fine, jagged particles very much susceptible to friction and static attraction.

Quote
"Rise time = fall time" is FALSE when the rise involves ongoing vacuum force pulling it into the wake of the boot.  (a force not present on the moon)
Strawman, it doesn't involve this vacuum "force" at all. Friction and static.
Quote
Perhaps one of your PNA friends will (again) police your conclusions here, for me.   Maybe you'll listen to them.
Or perhaps you have run out of excuses for running away from the 3 simple proofs.
Quote
I ask that you incorporate the "vacuum" force into your arguments.  If you don't, then it is YOU who are "running from the evidence/science".
Total bollocks. It isn't a force. The dust is dragged up though friction and static.
I summon the trustworthy @Zakalwe, to see if he sees any faults with @Mag40's logic here?
Stop trolling.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2024, 04:47:45 PM by Mag40 »

Offline najak

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 807
Re: Impossible Film Tech?
« Reply #69 on: November 27, 2024, 04:53:13 PM »
Quote
Perhaps one of your PNA friends will (again) police your conclusions here, for me.   Maybe you'll listen to them.
I summon the trustworthy @Zakalwe, to see if he sees any faults with @Mag40's logic here?
Stop trolling.
@Zakalwe, so far, is the only PNA who has corrected the bad logic of a fellow PNA.  So he's my hero. 

Since you won't listen to any good reasons from me, I'm pulling in someone (@Zakalwe) who is the closest thing I can find to a "more neutral party" - less subject to Confirmation bias, and more attuned to good science instead.

He corrected you - and you conceded.  I'd like to see what he has to say here about your stance on the "dust", and your omission of "vacuum force" from your argument.

Offline Mag40

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: Impossible Film Tech?
« Reply #70 on: November 27, 2024, 05:05:24 PM »
@Zakalwe, so far, is the only PNA who has corrected the bad logic of a fellow PNA.  So he's my hero.
I asked you to stop trolling.

Quote
Since you won't listen to any good reasons from me,
You're not giving good reasons!
Quote
I'm pulling in someone (@Zakalwe) who is the closest thing I can find to a "more neutral party" - less subject to Confirmation bias, and more attuned to good science instead.
Unlike you then.
Quote
He corrected you - and you conceded.
He proved it. 
Quote
I'd like to see what he has to say here about your stance on the "dust", and your omission of "vacuum force" from your argument.
Stop lying. I haven't omitted anything. This is negligible compared to friction and static attraction, particularly on the Moon.

Offline najak

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 807
Re: Impossible Film Tech?
« Reply #71 on: November 27, 2024, 05:55:41 PM »
@Zakalwe, so far, is the only PNA who has corrected the bad logic of a fellow PNA.  So he's my hero.
I asked you to stop trolling.
"Trolling" - Please find a different word (look up the meaning).

I am asking @Zakalwe to help break our "stalemate", so I'm calling in a 3rd person, someone seems to be willing to "correct his fellow PNAs" and also shows signs of stronger logic skills.

Offline Mag40

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: Impossible Film Tech?
« Reply #72 on: November 27, 2024, 06:31:40 PM »
"Trolling" - Please find a different word (look up the meaning).
Your posts are full of needless troll comments.
Quote
I am asking @Zakalwe to help break our "stalemate", so I'm calling in a 3rd person, someone seems to be willing to "correct his fellow PNAs" and also shows signs
There is no stalemate and I never for one moment expected you to concede a single thing. HBs just don't do that.

PNA is a troll label. Stop using it.

Offline najak

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 807
Re: Impossible Film Tech?
« Reply #73 on: November 27, 2024, 08:03:29 PM »
There is no stalemate and I never for one moment expected you to concede a single thing. HBs just don't do that.
PNA is a troll label. Stop using it.
I conceded on a few things so far, and will continue to do so.   Most recently I conceded that "vacuum suction" along the path is "slight" not "substantial".

"PNA" - Pro-Nasa-Advocate? This seems to be about the most neutral term I can find.
I have avoided the derogatory terms like "NASA Fanboy", "Pro-Nasa Disciples" etc...

I'd prefer to call you an "Apollogist" - because it's snappy, and also seemingly non-offensive (as even Biblical defenders call themselves 'Apologists').  It simply means you explain things, as best as you can, from a standpoint of "Apollo was fully real."

What term do you prefer in lieu of PNA?


Offline Mag40

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 545
Re: Impossible Film Tech?
« Reply #74 on: November 27, 2024, 08:24:45 PM »
I conceded on a few things so far, and will continue to do so.   Most recently I conceded that "vacuum suction" along the path is "slight" not "substantial".
What? You literally just said that it was "substantial" in the other thread. It's flimsy, miniscule, barely noticeable, like wafting your hand. Your attempts at trying to explain away time up = time down have failed.