Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.

[najak]

If low resolution prevents adequate analysis, everything you wrote before that is irrelevant.

The required resolution is a function of "size of particle".   If analyzing dust -- the resolution needs to be much higher.

[Mag40]

On what grounds do you presume the sand kicked forward to have the same upwards launch velocity as Cernan's COM?   You got nothing to go on here.

Visible evidence.
Height at boot level...

Progressive fall and final impact

Learn to identify ambiguity when you see it.  Stop being a toaster.

Learn honesty, lose this unscientific conformation bias. Get your own label. You have the logic of a toaster.

EVERYONE can see this apart from najak. The problem is pure denial. The mark on striking the surface on a wave clearly at boot height, occurs in the preceding two jumps.

No wonder he won't concede this, John Young jump and this and he's cornered.

[najak]

EVERYONE can see this apart from najak. The problem is pure denial. The mark on striking the surface on a wave clearly at boot height, occurs in the preceding two jumps.

No wonder he won't concede this, John Young jump and this and he's cornered.

If you feel so smart and sure.  Try debating this with me somewhere else, and see what others think outside of this echo chamber.

I see a THICK DUST CLOUD below the foot that falls QUICKLY, then scuttles.

If you want to say "no it dissipates!">.... then fine, that means there MIGHT BE DUST ABOVE THE FOOT going upwards that we simply cannot see... until it collects at the landing.

Oddly, we see this unmoving dark spot stay stationary for 1/3rd of a second!... why?   Did ALL of the dust magically follow the SAME parabolic arc -- but hit at a 1/3rd of second time span???  This too makes no sense.

You would lose your socks in a real debate under neutral grounds.  The overwhelming evidence here indicates "Ambiguity".   But you, like a toaster, think it's "bullet proof, smoking gun".

If you think I'm a toaster - great -- quit spending your time FORCING me (by LO's mandate) to address your SAME arguments again and again , and again... and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, ..

This is getting nowhere.  You've said you piece.  Have nothing new to say.  So you are beating a dead horse.   Learn to move on.  Go toast some bread.

[Mag40]

So far:

1. You claim I doctored footage when your own page 1 example shows the same parabola! Withdraw the claim unconditionally. You repeated this lie even after I posted the gif! Has not withdrawn the claim it was doctored, maintains some dark area is an irrelevant clump of soil that flies off faster then his boot! Still denies the premise of the visible parabola.

2. You have yet to address the appearance of the same ground mark on the 2 jumps preceding The main Gene Cernan jump....showing the dust hitting the ground as he lands! Denies the obvious smooth landing dust wave and says the 3 impacts are coincidence.

3. Your volleyball example is FAR away, moving to the side, and the sand does NOT rise as high as the jumper.   So there is nothing to compare here.   MY EXAMPLE of the volleyball player jump, is CLEAR, CLOSE, and demonstrates that the dust falls at the same rate.  This one is MORE similar to the Duke Side-jump example. Reluctantly conceded - invalidating the entire premise of the thread (but in fairness it has been conceded in general).

4. Not once have you acknowledged that viewing conditions were far from ideal, grey on grey, kicked forwards away from Young and grainy video. Acknowledge this and show some integrity and factor it in. Most of the soil didn't even rise as high as he did! Finally conceded

----------------------------------------

5. You claimed the visible parabola was a "splatter" where did it go between images? Not a splatter, so what is your new obfuscationary theory?
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg58683#msg58683

5. The scant parabola that I don't see in the NASA footage is obviously scant... dispersion happens... so thick becomes less thick, and scant becomes invisible.   Or in this case "more invisible".

A complete evasion! This is as tedious as it gets. You said the mark here:


was a splatter.

The picture taken seconds after shows it gone!



It's the parabolic arc that you are afraid to concede. Slam dunk. Unless you have an honest answer for this?

[najak]

{recap}

Great, you summarized your gripes and why you think you have a smoking gun.  Congrats, publish it.

Can we be done now?

[Mag40]

This is getting nowhere.

No. We are establishing just how far you will go to deny the obvious, in pursuit of your confirmation bias.

You've said you piece.  Have nothing new to say.

Unfortunately that isn't the problem. Your lack of adequate and accurate replies is clearly the issue here.

So you are beating a dead horse. Learn to move on. Go toast some bread.

Soon. After we've dotted all the denial and crossed all the evasion.

Can we be done now?

Soon... answer point 5 just above. You said it was a ground splatter. Type the words "it is clearly a scant column of dust".

I'm going to briefly revisit point 8 and the one you didn't even answer - dust related of course:

I've got way more examples to disprove this puny, myopic thread.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258606632_Ballistic_motion_of_dust_particles_in_the_Lunar_Roving_Vehicle_dust_trails
"V. SUMMARY
We have analyzed the motion of the dust clouds lofted by the Lunar Roving Vehicle of the Apollo 16 mission. Adopting a simple 2D geometry, we found that the dust followed ballistic trajectories under the influence of the lunar gravity. The gravitational constant of the moon derived from the dust trajectory is within 10% of the expected value. The images used in our analysis are available online for use as supplementary material in physics education.

As for your claim that dust rose higher blah blah, based on you circling a darker area - this is a mixture of shadow and regolith but easier to see on the better footage:


Or is this not "ambiguous"?

[bknight]

I don't see any dust higher either about level with the bottom of the boot for my eyes.

[Mag40]

Quick summary - point 5 still evaded and points 9 and 10 new additions. There are dozens more examples where dust behaves in a non-terrestrial fashion.

1. You claim I doctored footage when your own page 1 example shows the same parabola! Withdraw the claim unconditionally. You repeated this lie even after I posted the gif! Has not withdrawn the claim it was doctored, maintains a dark area(just shadow) is an irrelevant clump of soil that flies off faster then his boot! Still denies the premise of the visible parabola.
https://i.ibb.co/tmh8zN8/shadow.jpg

2. You have yet to address the appearance of the same ground mark on the 2 jumps preceding The main Gene Cernan jump....showing the dust hitting the ground as he lands!  Denies the obvious smooth landing dust wave and says the 3 impacts are coincidence.
https://youtu.be/NHeOpJh5Q-M

3. You have ignored the zoomed in volleyball example showing "dust falls too fast".
Reluctantly conceded after it was shown he didn't even look at the gif - invalidating the entire premise of the thread (but in fairness it has been conceded in general).
https://i.ibb.co/hfDCpk4/Jump1-sandfallsquickly-ezgif-com-resize.gif

4. Not once have you acknowledged that viewing conditions were far from ideal, grey on grey, kicked forwards away from Young and grainy video. Acknowledge this and show some integrity and factor it in. Most of the soil didn't even rise as high as he did! Finally conceded.

----------------------------------------

5. You claimed the visible parabola was a "splatter" where did it go between images? Not a splatter, so what is your new obfuscationary theory?
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg58683#msg58683

5. The scant parabola that I don't see in the NASA footage is obviously scant... dispersion happens... so thick becomes less thick, and scant becomes invisible.   Or in this case "more invisible".

A complete evasion! This is as tedious as it gets. You said the mark here:


was a splatter.

The picture taken seconds after shows it gone!



It's the parabolic arc that you are afraid to concede. Slam dunk. Unless you have an honest answer for this?

6. In that John Young gif, there is a shadow of dust moving forwards on the left and when he is descending there is slight ground discolouration as the dust settles - it moves forwards as a wave.
 Finally answered - conceded.
https://i.ibb.co/qrjRGpk/Jump.gif

7. You are the only one who can't see the Gene Cernan jump's wave of dust hitting the ground in a nice neat event!
And still the ONLY person who cannot see this - pure denial
https://i.ibb.co/bBN2W5n/ezgif-4-bf2a5dc2a2.gif

8. Your insistence that somebody could kick a wave of dust 1.25m high at 7.22 m per second on Earth, with a sideways flick of their foot is so absurd it becomes pure evasive obfuscation.
Denial again - apparently it's an athlete doing this. No dust suspension and an alien height/speed for the dust wave
https://i.ibb.co/PFMzmYx/9cl91y.gif

9.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258606632_Ballistic_motion_of_dust_particles_in_the_Lunar_Roving_Vehicle_dust_trails
"V. SUMMARY
We have analyzed the motion of the dust clouds lofted by the Lunar Roving Vehicle of the Apollo 16 mission. Adopting a simple 2D geometry, we found that the dust followed ballistic trajectories under the influence of the lunar gravity. The gravitational constant of the moon derived from the dust trajectory is within 10% of the expected value. The images used in our analysis are available online for use as supplementary material in physics education."

10. Harrison Schmitt bounding downhill, blasting dust all over the place at ridiculous speeds when playback is increased. Speeding it up 1.5 times using inbuilt YouTube display (too slow, visibly so) it's already travelling madly too quick and far. There is no COM/COG jerking from a non-vertical wire - meaning it must match his speed, direction and orientation the whole time. Anyone who thinks such a thing possible doesn't understand how wire supports work - especially invisible ones.

 
Mythbusters had Adam Savage in a suit with wires to simulate 1/6g and (ignoring how the hoax claim is speed and wires combined) his motion is clearly jerky as even slight vertical misalignment pulls back.