Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.

[najak]

@Mag40 - OK, I've been under the impression that it's best to take stuff from the NASA source.  I also know about SCF but they are out of commission and no longer shipping the films I want to get (e.g. Apollo 15 isn't even being made now).

You are telling that "Comedy Time Inc." with 82 subscribers is the BEST SOURCE for Apollo footage?

===
"Parabola" - yes I see the Parabola.  Are you under the impression that earth's gravity doesn't also follow a parabola?

0.3 seconds after the jump starts, there is already dust that is about 5 inches above the bottom of his boot, which means it's initial velocity is more than the boot speed - and so is difficult to conclude anything from it.  So we can instead look at the sand beneath the boot, which is rising with the boot bottom, at the same speed.   It has all fallen back to the ground before John starts on his way back down.  A clear sign that the gravity affecting the dust beneath him has significantly higher acceleration.

I'll bring in a few more shots before this is over, that might be more clear.

[najak]

On your hippity Hoppity example -- the "dust dot" that you are so happy about, remains nearly stationary and exists for 10 frames in a row! ... 1/3rd of a second.  THIS is NOT how dust behaves... it should only be showing for 3 frames at most, or if longer, needs to be moving...   There's no way a single jump would launch a constant perfect stream of dust that lasted 1/3rd of a second.

So it simply cannot be dust.

===
Interestingly on the MPG from NASA has a 1 frame defect...  Is this what you'd expect from "dust/blemish on the film"?  (a sure sign of faking, as PNA's say as part of the reason we couldn't  have faked it?)

How do you explain this big yellow strand?

[Mag40]

OK, I've been under the impression that it's best to take stuff from the NASA source.

There's multiple versions varying in quality. I just posted one direct from NASA and you appear to have just ignored it.

You are telling that "Comedy Time Inc." with 82 subscribers is the BEST SOURCE for Apollo footage?

I believe I said Dwight Steven-Boniecki because I know for a fact that is where it came from. On the old archived website a decade or more ago that was uploaded by him. I don't care about diversionary one frame artefacts or what footage you have downloaded.

"Parabola" - yes I see the Parabola.  Are you under the impression that earth's gravity doesn't also follow a parabola?

Oh, I very much am not under that impression. What impression I am under is that it clearly rises in perfect sync with his boot. Time up=time down. So to make the parabola go up like Earth freefall, given that we are seeing very, very close to perfect lunar freefall, requires the jump to be altered at 245% - do you agree. If not explain why not.

The rest of your post is irrelevant, biased observational analysis on poor quality video.


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

[Mag40]

Why have you ignored this post?
Reply #22 on: Today at 09:55:44 AM
https://apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=2019.msg57711#msg57711

"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."

[najak]

"Parabola" - yes I see the Parabola.  Are you under the impression that earth's gravity doesn't also follow a parabola?

Oh, I very much am not under that impression. What impression I am under is that it clearly rises in perfect sync with his boot. Time up=time down. So to make the parabola go up like Earth freefall, given that we are seeing very, very close to perfect lunar freefall, requires the jump to be altered at 245% - do you agree. If not explain why not.

OK - so we agree that trajectories follow parabolas on both moon and earth.  That's good.

I'll do a bit more research here, see if I can muster some frame captures to present.

The Hippity Gallop, has too much motion and chaos.  The dust you are wanting to hang your hat on is clearly kicked with a measure of chaos, and in the context of "hopping" which REQUIRES him to kick his feet forward signficantly to catch his fall... it's this kick that causes chaos -- since the trajectory is INVISIBLE, we cannot trace a parabola, including the "initial velocity"..

You belief that this unclear footage is a "case closed" - either demonstrates controlling confirmation bias, or ineptness at logic/analysis.   I think your skills are lacking.

I'll pull up the instances that I've seen presented by others that are close-up, and where trajectories of dust can be more clearly seen.   Then we can assess those.

===
Also, in most cases, the MLH theory isn't 40% slowdown.... but something less.   MLH theory is that the upward force is NOT 83% of their mass, but something closer to HALF... 

The only time they need to slow down to 40% is for Projectiles with Sideways motion.... otherwise, it can be shown that the parabola doesn't match Lunar gravity.  So get this "40% fixed slowdown" claim out of your head -- this is not the MLH claim, except for a few rare instances.

[Mag40]

OK - so we agree that trajectories follow parabolas on both moon and earth.  That's good.

Don't play this ridiculous patronising game. "We" aren't agreeing the obvious. You asked a foolish question as a means to divert.

I'll do a bit more research here, see if I can muster some frame captures to present.

I am going to assume it will concentrate on fudging the conclusion. Everyone can see the nice little parabolic arc going up in perfect sync with his boots. All your rhetoric is irrelevant, about how the dust disappears - grey on grey - when even that is debatable with visible ground shadows moving.

The Hippity Gallop, has too much motion and chaos.

Nope.

The dust you are wanting to hang your hat on is clearly kicked with a measure of chaos, and in the context of "hopping" which REQUIRES him to kick his feet forward signficantly to catch his fall... it's this kick that causes chaos -- since the trajectory is INVISIBLE, we cannot trace a parabola, including the "initial velocity"

Your powers of obfuscation far exceed your observation. There are a number of significant and visible indicators. We see the same dust splashes on the two jumps before as he lands. The freeze frame of the last full jump clearly shows a wave of dust as high as his boot. His motion has no tell-tale signs of a wire harness. Even a student of physics can understand that a moving invisible support will create a centre-of-gravity changing jerkiness that is most certainly not there on the footage. Cernan arrives at this point from something like 100 yards away.

You belief that this unclear footage is a "case closed" - either demonstrates controlling confirmation bias, or ineptness at logic/analysis.   I think your skills are lacking.

Hot air, another speciality of the HB. My skills are showing you the door. That's 3 pieces of short lunar activity that prove lower gravity and every one of them, you are trying to fudge away. That's another thing HBs excel at. And don't you dare lecture me on logic! The whole concept of later missions, sodding about with variable speed, staging little throwing clips and dust kicking is absurd all on its own, without the risks inherent in actually continuing to do mission-faking when it wasn't needed. I wish Dwight Steven-Boniecki was here to explain how the video speed changing would be totally obvious - maybe one of the other specialists can explain this for you (to dismiss!).

Also, in most cases, the MLH theory isn't 40% slowdown.... but something less.   MLH theory is that the upward force is NOT 83% of their mass, but something closer to HALF... 

The only time they need to slow down to 40% is for Projectiles with Sideways motion.... otherwise, it can be shown that the parabola doesn't match Lunar gravity.  So get this "40% fixed slowdown" claim out of your head -- this is not the MLH claim, except for a few rare instances.

Magic video technology claim incoming, as a means to obfuscate evidence that any competent physicist would find irrefutable.

[najak]

Magic video technology claim incoming, as a means to obfuscate evidence that any competent physicist would find irrefutable.

Your original "smoking gun" video showed dust for which there is no trace of the trajectory -- appearing in nearly the same location for 10 frames!  And confirming this as "smoking gun dust"...  but dust kicked up and landing at the same time wouldn't appear near-stationary for 1/3rd of a second.  Any legitimate physicist would confirm this for you.

Do you REALLY think those 10 frames accurately depict DUST?   How do you explain the "near stationary continuous appearance for 1/3rd of a second"?   Wouldn't there be more chaos here... more a dispersion/splatter...  instead it's focused down to a small cluster of darkened dots -- there for longer than what would be real.

This is the evidence you asked me to consider, and then insult me for not accepting it as "smoking gun evidence".  It hardly appears as evidence at all.

[najak]

@Mag40 wrote: "Dwight Steven-Boniecki was here to explain how the video speed changing would be totally obvious "
===

Since this claim of optical printing method to calibrate frame speeds more gradually has been around for many years -- why do you need him "here"-- hasn't he already debunked this elsewhere?  Just post the link, and it'll be "just like he was here".

I'll capture all of this inside of a KB (knowledgebase) doc, for future reference.

[Mag40]

Your original "smoking gun" video showed dust for which there is no trace of the trajectory

That's bullshit. There is a visible wave at boot level and 3 simultaneous splashes on the surface for his landing.

-- appearing in nearly the same location for 10 frames!

And?

And confirming this as "smoking gun dust"...  but dust kicked up and landing at the same time wouldn't appear near-stationary for 1/3rd of a second.

Your expectations of lunar activity and what that specific camera would pick up are irrelevant. You are deliberately ignoring the simultaneous event at landing on this jump and the two preceding it, plus the visible arc at apex. It is clearly visible as it lands in a splashing action.

Any legitimate physicist would confirm this for you.

Nope. I can confirm that you are obfuscating and wriggling because the game is up with just a few simple opening salvos.

How do you explain the "near stationary continuous appearance for 1/3rd of a second"?

I don't need to explain it. You do. Then you need to establish that your explanation is accurate and how it dismisses the claim. 

Wouldn't there be more chaos here... more a dispersion/splatter...  instead it's focused down to a small cluster of darkened dots -- there for longer than what would be real.

Just more begging the question. I can assure you that nobody cares about your expectations or casual dismissal.

This is the evidence you asked me to consider, and then insult me for not accepting it as "smoking gun evidence".  It hardly appears as evidence at all.

Hand waving is the tool of the HB. Don't you dare lecture me on "insulting" you. Your rudeness in just a few days has been distasteful and needless, how everyone is incompetent at physics except you, yet here I am showing you the door with 3 simple clips.

I have a fourth one that is a real classic.

[Mag40]

Since this claim of optical printing method to calibrate frame speeds more gradually has been around for many years -- why do you need him "here"-- hasn't he already debunked this elsewhere?  Just post the link, and it'll be "just like he was here".

It's to do with the colour-wheels and I cannot be bothered wading through thousands of forum pages to find it!

I'll capture all of this inside of a KB (knowledgebase) doc, for future reference.

You do that. Nobody cares.

[najak]

Wouldn't there be more chaos here... more a dispersion/splatter...  instead it's focused down to a small cluster of darkened dots -- there for longer than what would be real.

Just more begging the question. I can assure you that nobody cares about your expectations or casual dismissal.

OK - re-reviewed this footage, and I see a potential explanation for this 10 frames of dust/splash.   It's not coming from "a parabola" but appears to be hovering around the ground (rolling/bouncing, but not sticking, due to it's horizontal velocity component).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kpVswUwRBNivmXDAcOJJEbeLZHAzTuou/view?usp=drive_link

To the right of the "dust splash", you can see the residue from the initial jump, moving along the ground, and ending in this splash....  so the dust trail all hits the same place, due to a likely obstruction on the ground (raised part, catches the dust, and the rest then just follows).

Here's I've captured Frames 31 and 32:
31 - no signs of any dust coming from above, but the aberration of dust moving along the ground is to the right.
32 - first sign of dust splash beginning -- as the dust from the right, disappears right into it.. frame by frame (moving to the left)

So the dust is real, not faked, but is best explained by dust scuttling along the ground until it comes to a stop, which happens at this highpoint.

Prior frames show this dust Falling Far Too Fast from Boot Level to Ground... before it scuttles forward until it reaches this stopping point.

Here's the KRITA frame capture again for reference.  The Frame #'s are shown at far right.   (in MP4,  26 second mark)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kpVswUwRBNivmXDAcOJJEbeLZHAzTuou/view?usp=drive_link

[Mag40]

OK - re-reviewed this footage, and I see a potential explanation for this 10 frames of dust/splash.   It's not coming from "a parabola" but appears to be hovering around the ground (rolling/bouncing, but not sticking, due to it's horizontal velocity component).

And once again you have ignored the significant part of it. Irrefutably, there is a dust wave level with his boot:


I don't care about your "analysis" of clear dust striking the surface with no dust suspension and fine enough that it disperses immediately. It happens on each of the hops. It happens as he lands.

So we have visual confirmation the dust is at boot height at apex and we have visual confirmation it hits the ground on landing for 3 jumps. Whatever fudging you are doing it isn't going to wash. A competent scientist doesn't do that, they don't try to fix their conclusion to a prior fixated belief.

His motion has no tell-tale signs of a wire harness. Even a student of physics can understand that a moving invisible support will create a centre-of-gravity changing jerkiness that is most certainly not there on the footage. Cernan arrives at this point from something like 100 yards away.

[Mag40]

When are you going to address (fudge) the irrefutable parabola rising to boot level in perfect sync with John Young's boots?

[najak]

And once again you have ignored the significant part of it. Irrefutably, there is a dust wave level with his boot:

I see that dust rising to boot level.. and 7 frames later - it's ALREADY ON THE GROUND!   This proves a mismatch in gravity... Cernan is suspended.

Now this dust on the ground has forward velocity, so bounds/scuttles along the ground until it collides with a high point, which creates the small splash.

As you can see ... EVERY TIME the dust is off-the-ground, it appears DARK.   Yet we see no "parabolic motion of dust landing on the splash location"...  instead we only see the dust that is "already at ground level" scuttle into a single point.

If it was dropping from high onto this spot, we'd see SOMETHING, but we do not.

So as you advised, Mr. Scientist, it's time to change your hypothesis/theory, to match the actual evidence.

This is 7 frames after your frame above... he's still in the air:

[najak]

And two more frames later -- he's still soaring high, and the dust along the ground is almost invisible...  But we can watch it scuttle along until it hit the highpoint, which becomes the splash.