Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.

[BertieSlack]

Find it yourself. It's not hard.

[bknight]

You'll really want to apologise when you see the full TV sequence at the flag. It's quite clear the astronauts are in a low-gravity vacuum environment as they move around.

You make a lot of allusions... as though you are sitting on wisdom -- but never say anything of substance.  If you think something will impact me - why didn't you shared the link so I could see it?

Please put more substance into your responses, so that we can know what magic wisdom resides in your superior brain. 

Do some real research instead of parroting some other willfully ignorant individual to find the real answer.  I have view Jet's work in the past and find it without merit.  It is too bad he hitched onto the Conspiracy instead of in depth analysis of the aspects he describes.
Your brain is inferior concerning Apollo as your posts have identified.

[najak]

Do some real research instead of parroting some other willfully ignorant individual to find the real answer.  I have view Jet's work in the past and find it without merit.  It is too bad he hitched onto the Conspiracy instead of in depth analysis of the aspects he describes.
Your brain is inferior concerning Apollo as your posts have identified.

Jet isn't so smart, and lacks the skills to do what he's set out to do.  Most of his first video was utter crap.  I only reference his 2017 presentation of the Apollo 14 flag motion, as it seems that the evidence he's pointed to in this case is legit.   I don't see anyone debunking the core claim here - "how did the flag get PULLED back to the LM?"   But this is OFF-TOPIC, as my reference to Jet is in the other thread, not here.

For the "sand falling" - I did ALL of my own research here - compiled into this KB..  I went to the NASA published source, and used VLC to capture all source frames, for analysis inside KRITA (free tool, so others can open my file and check my work).   Check it out:

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

[najak]

Find it yourself. It's not hard.

If you aren't here to contribute, please don't comment.  You implying you are sitting on "secret wisdom" is an old tactic frequently employed by people sitting on little-to-nothing.  That'll be my base assumption of you, until you prove otherwise.   I've been doing PLENTY of work here, and no where have I seen a legitimate explanation for "How did the Flag flow TOWARDS the LM?"   This is a smoking gun proof that "something is amiss."

[bknight]

Find it yourself. It's not hard.

If you aren't here to contribute, please don't comment.  You implying you are sitting on "secret wisdom" is an old tactic frequently employed by people sitting on little-to-nothing.  That'll be my base assumption of you, until you prove otherwise.   I've been doing PLENTY of work here, and no where have I seen a legitimate explanation for "How did the Flag flow TOWARDS the LM?"   This is a smoking gun proof that "something is amiss."

Your work is poor just like your understanding.  Sand here on Earth is in an air environment that provides a small restriction to falling.  Because the Lunar environment is essentially nil, there is no restive force to it falling, No the astronaut was not suspended. You are really poor at this.

[najak]

Your work is poor just like your understanding.  Sand here on Earth is in an air environment that provides a small restriction to falling.  Because the Lunar environment is essentially nil, there is no restive force to it falling, No the astronaut was not suspended. You are really poor at this.

Are you saying that Dust vs. the Astronaut, even though they start rising in unison, at the same speed, that the Dust will fall faster because there's no air to stop it?

Did you ever take Physics in school?  What was your grade?   You seem to have no grasp of the basics.

@Kiwi -- please save these guys.  Can you say something intelligent here?  I didn't come here to berate people for being bad at science -- I came here for intelligent debate -- and so far finding no one with an adequate skillset in physics or logic.   I want a smart debate with competent science minds.

[BertieSlack]

"physics"

You have provided absolutely no evidence that the dust rose as high as the astronaut. You have failed to account for the fact that some dust was kicked forward and would have obviously landed BEFORE the astronaut. You have failed to account for the poor quality of the TV camera versus the 70mm still photography. You have failed to examine the whole clip which shows the dust behaving exactly as it should in a low-gravity vacuum environment. If the astronaut is on a wire then so is every particle of dust.
Physics is not on your side here. Just your bias.

[Mag40]

Thanks for the attempt at debunking.  This gave me some homework to do.  I consider your "hippity hoppity" rebuttal as a failure.

And I know for a fact your rejection is the real failure.

Today I obtained the NASA source video for this clip, as well as the Navy salute, and captured all frames at native resolution, without modification.

What? The "source" video? Some of the best video has been reprocessed by Spacecraft Films without the impediments of internet compression.

1. Navy Salute - appears to be damning for the PNA's.

No it doesn't.

2. The Hippity Hoppity attempted rebuttal has a major flaw.

And again, no it doesn't.

I have placed all of my work on OneDrive

Well good for you, I am not interested in playing "go fetch", particularly given the poor quality understanding and regurgitated nature of your claims.

Check it out and let me know what you think:
Bring it here.

#1 - This dot stays nearly stationary and the same size for 10 frames! (1/3rd second)
If it was incoming sand, it would be moving along the ground.

This is the final part of the wave hitting the surface - a nonsense conclusion.

#2 - There is no sign of any dust coming in from above.  It’s fully invisible, then this dot just magically appears, and stays nearly stationary for 10 frames, and PNA’s call it dust.

Grey on grey will do that and the TV quality was hardly HD. Another rather useless statement from you. It doesn't "magically appear", we clearly see it impact the surface. That's the nature of impacts.

#3 - Let’s imagine that this is dust (magical).   As he’s hopping along, each time he has to kick his feet forward as part of the hopping motion.  This kicking motion would cause some dust to have an added upward boost.   But since this dust is also INVISIBLE until it hits the ground many frames later – we are not able to tell by what trajectory it arrived at its stationary destination.

That is just nonsense. You can see very clearly that there is a parabolic arc of dust level and below his boot, when he is at apex. In that one frame the laws of physics are very specific. Objects will reach the same height at the same time - that single irrefutable point, all on its own shows this is on the Moon. Clearly he is jumping in a way that is impossible on Earth without assistance. Yet his vertical jump time matches the dust parabola. So either he is not on wires or the dust is also.

When we also marry his subsequent surface impact with the dust this just seals the deal.

Any physicist would understand this.

Here is the real spoiler that an observant person would have noticed - the same simultaneous dust splash occurs on the jump before.

[Mag40]

My belief is that if a 200 lb man.

Clearly visible is the mass of the PLSS. It significantly drags as he jumps up and significantly carries on moving when he lands. Your belief carries no authority.

Lunar gravity is then simulated as a combination of "partial lifting force" and reducing the playback speed by about 45%.  (instead of 60%).

And all of it debunked by a simple little dust parabola between his boots.

Now, everyone who sees this can see the parabolic arc of dust between his boots. Can you?

Again, it seems I'm dealing with people here who do not understand basic simple high school physics. 

It's best not to patronise people from a position of weakness.

If the astronaut and fake-suit weigh 200 lbs combined

They don't.

[najak]

@Mag40 - your GIF isn't showing "Source frames" - someone modified that.

NASA has the MPG you can download and see the real frames.  It's what I did on my OneDrive account - all frames are there--- which don't match your GIF.   You need to get a accurate GIF, or stop showing the lie here.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13PbDNid-AEWhkh8PA1IiUOx0PG7GRKO0/view?usp=drive_link

Also to note, that there is a little dust between the legs that STARTS off with a higher velocity, as you can see it on frame 9 (0.3 seconds after the jump starts) -- thus this sand launched up faster than his feet, will stay up longer-- which is what you can see happening... but this dust started out rising faster.... as can be clearly seen from Frame 9 source shot.

[Mag40]

@Mag40 - your GIF isn't showing "Source frames" - someone modified that.

And straight from the HB playbook, "your footage" is faked!

NASA has the MPG you can download and see the real frames.  It's what I did on my OneDrive account - all frames are there--- which don't match your GIF.   You need to get a accurate GIF, or stop showing the lie here.

The gif takes enough frames to show the parabolic arc. Please try not to play the role of "expert" in your advice about where to get source material. I was looking at this more than 10 years ago.

Also to note, that there is a little dust between the legs that STARTS off with a higher velocity

All rather irrelevant. What happens to the dust when it is predominantly kicked forward against a grey background doesn't change the parabolic arc rising in perfect sync to the same height as his boots.

[najak]

Your link is to someone's page.   The official NASA footage can be found in the Surface Journal, here:

https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a16/a16.alsepoff.html

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1202523.mpg

If you've been doing this for 10 years, why are you not using the NASA MPG instead of someone else's where it may have been processed (and seems to have been).

[najak]

@Mag40 - before I'm done with this topic, I'll do the frame analysis for the other videos where it's also obvious that the sand falls way too fast.

The source footage for the Navy Salute doesn't show this arc, like your footage from someone else.   The source is what you should be using here, except you don't because it doesn't support your narrative.

[Mag40]

Your link is to someone's page.   The official NASA footage can be found in the Surface Journal, here:

https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a16/a16.alsepoff.html

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1202523.mpg

If you've been doing this for 10 years, why are you not using the NASA MPG instead of someone else's where it may have been processed (and seems to have been).

I'm using footage supplied from video recorded during the mission - supplied by Dwight Steven-Boniecki - a renowned expert on Apollo TV.

The ALSJ uses highly compressed videos. I've told you the best source are the DVDs from Spacecraft films where the original signal itself is directly mapped onto media. There is a massive difference. If you have ever seen Apollo footage on a large HD screen it is considerably better and clearer than internet limiting footage.

Stop evading the issue. The footage provided is the clearest I have ever seen and shows clearly the parabolic arc.  Can you see the parabola? Closes the case.

[Mag40]

@Mag40 - before I'm done with this topic, I'll do the frame analysis for the other videos where it's also obvious that the sand falls way too fast.

That is completely irrelevant. Your failure to see the grey dust against a grey background is not "analysis". What we do see is in both instances a clear arc of dust at boot level whilst the astronaut is at apex. Now since you admitted time up = time down, it's not too difficult for anyone to reason that out.

The source footage for the Navy Salute doesn't show this arc, like your footage from someone else.   The source is what you should be using here, except you don't because it doesn't support your narrative.

Your insistence that only you are capable of tracking down footage is another HB playbook statement. There are dozens of these on youtube and every single one shows the parabolic arc. The game is up and you are trying to wriggle out of it by claiming the lie about it being doctored.

Straight from NASA, clear as day!
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/a16v.1202523.mpg