Hoax? - Sand Falls too Fast.

[onebigmonkey]

#1: There are no billowing clouds. Ever.
#2: You have focused exclusively on the upward trajectory of particles...
#3: You are also making a big deal out of the fact that different video resolutions....

#1: ... that we notice.  Just as they said "there are no signs of dust, or we'd know it was filmed!" - but if you check the footage, it's full of "white dots" that appear only for one frame -- the same as dust would produce.   The "dust between the feet" is a small "billow of dust".

#2: Nope-- @Mag40 is FORCING THIS....  I've said from the start - "this isn't the main point" - the main point is how fast the dust clouds fall.   And I switched my main case over the CLOSE-UP of an astronaut jumping sideways, so that we could better witness/verify that the Dust really does fall a LOT faster than the astronaut, to remove the Apollogies made for the Young case.

#3: Nope --- I'm making a deal that his footage may have been modified ("enhanced" they might say) to show dust between the feet, whereas on the NASA footage it's not evident at all.

The main point for this dust is that we SEE CLEARLY from the onset that there is a thick cloud of dust ABOVE the boot bottom -- how do you think it got there?  Does this tell you anything about the launch velocity of this dust?  And how might this impact the predicted trajectory?

The Young case has some potential ambiguity -- which is why I focus on the CLEAREST CASE -- of the astronaut doing it from the side, very close, with thick clouds of dust that rise with the foot, but fall to the ground WAY faster.

You keep calling it a thick cloud of dust. It is not. It is a spray of material. Any material above his boots was launched there by his boot.

If there was an atmosphere, the material would behave completely differently. Your claims that it falls faster than an astronaut, and that it has been added afterwards, are simply that: claims.

They are unsubstantiated, and do not match the wealth of other observations. They require the answers to a whole range of other questions that you have failed to provide.

The point of the  live TV sequence is that it recorded a photography session. Those photographs show the regolith in motion. Are they doctored?

[Kiwi]

This seems like good time to post links to the two still photos of the jump salutes, plus the ground elapsed times, dialogue, and comments in the Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal:

AS16-113-18339HR
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18339HR.jpg

AS16-113-18340HR
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18340HR.jpg

Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal (condensed version below)
https://www.nasa.gov/history/alsj/a16/a16.alsepoff.html#1202523

120:25:23 Duke: Hey, John, this is perfect, with the LM and the Rover and you and Stone Mountain. And the old flag. Come on out here and give me a salute. Big Navy salute.
120:25:35 Young: Look at this. (Pause)
[John walks into view and waves his right arm in and out at shoulder level to position the restraining cable so that he can salute.]
120:25:40 England: That's a pretty outstanding picture here, I tell you.
120:25:42 Duke: Come on; a little bit closer. Okay, here we go. A big one.
[John bends his knees slightly, springs about a meter off the ground, and salutes. He is off the ground about 1.45 seconds which, in the lunar gravity field, means that he launched himself at a velocity of about 1.17 m/s and reached a maximum height of 0.42 m. This superb picture is AS16-113-18339. Note that John's total weight - body, suit, and backpack, is about 30 kilograms or 65 pounds. In Houston, Tony chuckles with delight.]
[Jones - "John's jumps says to me he's got a great deal of confidence this early."]
[Duke - "His balance was really extraordinary."]
120:25:49 Duke: Off the ground. Once more. (Pause) There we go.
[John's second jump lasts about 1.30 seconds and, consequently, his launch velocity is about 1.05 m/s and his maximum height is 0.34 m. This picture is AS16-113-18340.]
120:25:54 Young: (Garbled) (Pause)
[While John walks toward him, Charlie takes the Hasselblad off his RCU bracket and gives it to John.]
120:26:05 Young: I'd like to see an Air Force salute, Charlie, but I don't think they salute in the Air Force.
[Charlie reaches the flag and bounces around to face John.]
120:26:08 Duke: Yes, sir; we do.
120:26:09 Young: (Laughing)
120:26:10 Duke: And fly high and straight and land soft.
120:26:13 Young: Okay, Charlie, say when.
120:26:15 Duke: Here we go.
[Charlie salutes. The picture is AS16-113-18341.]
120:26:16 Young: Do it again.
120:26:17 Duke: One for you. Okay, wait a minute; one more.
[These pictures are AS16-113-18342 and 113-18343.]
120:26:19 England: This looks like a good time for some good news here....
120:26:20 Young: Okay.
120:26:21 Duke: (To Young) Got it?
120:26:21 England: ...The House passed the space budget yesterday, 277 to 60, which includes the vote for the Shuttle.
120:26:30 LM Crew: Beautiful. Wonderful. Beautiful.
[John and Charlie return to the Rover. Once again, Charlie does a leisurely skip, getting slightly off the ground each time. John takes the Hasselblad off the RCU bracket and walks back.]
120:26:33 Duke: Tony, again I'll say it, with that salute, I'm proud to be an American, I'll tell you. What a program and what a place and what an experience.
120:26:42 Young: And I'll say it too.
120:26:43 England: So am I.
120:26:44 Young: The country needs that Shuttle mighty bad. You'll see.
[John became the Chief of the Astronaut Office in 1975 and, later, appointed himself to command the first Shuttle flight. STS-1 was 36-orbit mission launched on April 12, 1981, the twentieth anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's Vostok 1 flight. The pilot - and only other crewmember - on STS-1 was Robert Crippen.]

[najak]

#1: You keep calling it a thick cloud of dust. It is not. It is a spray of material. Any material above his boots was launched there by his boot.
#2: Your claims that it falls faster than an astronaut, and that it has been added afterwards, are simply that: claims.
#3: The point of the  live TV sequence is that it recorded a photography session. Those photographs show the regolith in motion. Are they doctored?

#1: Call it what you will - it was a thick volume of dust to the right of his boot AHEAD of his boot -- indicating a faster launch velocity...  Do you see this?


#2: "Added afterwards"?  The MLH claim is that this could be explained by a cable lifting up about 50% of Young's weight.  Thus the dust falls faster than Young.

#3: I am unfamiliar with what proof you are referring to that you believe was "non-feasible to fake".  Show me a link, and we can assess.

[najak]

This seems like good time to post links to the two still photos of the jump salutes, plus the ground elapsed times, dialogue, and comments in the Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal:
AS16-113-18339HR
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18339HR.jpg

Your timing was immaculate, thanks.  This high resolution photo shows no "dust parabola" between the feet - here we see no dust at all, at apex.

[Mag40]

#1: ... that we notice.

What the hell? Confirming the point. There are no billowing clouds!

but if you check the footage, it's full of "white dots" that appear only for one frame -- the same as dust would produce.   The "dust between the feet" is a small "billow of dust".

That is possibly the stupidest claim you've made and the competition is fierce.

#2: Nope-- @Mag40 is FORCING THIS....  I've said from the start - "this isn't the main point" - the main point is how fast the dust clouds fall. Dust really does fall a LOT faster than the astronaut, to remove the Apollogies made for the Young case.

That is correct, I am "forcing" this. You cited the jump and ignored everything that didn't fit and made conclusions that ignored conditions.

#3: Nope --- I'm making a deal that his footage may have been modified ("enhanced" they might say) to show dust between the feet, whereas on the NASA footage it's not evident at all.

Yet the video YOU supplied in post 1 shows the same parabola.

The main point for this dust is that we SEE CLEARLY from the onset that there is a thick cloud of dust ABOVE the boot bottom -- how do you think it got there?  Does this tell you anything about the launch velocity of this dust?  And how might this impact the predicted trajectory?

It tells me 2 things, that you are deliberately exaggerating it and on clearer footage looks mainly to be the toe of his left boot facing inwards before he jumps! I also see that the circle you make around it, is pretty much totally below his boot anyway!

The Young case has some potential ambiguity -- which is why I focus on the CLEAREST CASE -- of the astronaut doing it from the side, very close, with thick clouds of dust that rise with the foot, but fall to the ground WAY faster.

There is no ambiguity, just you blundering in with a claim and running away from numerous points that don't fit with your immovable position.

Now it looks like I need to ask you to stop acting like the bog-standard HB you claimed not to be and start showing this illusive "100% integrity"!

1. Here is an animated gif, taken from YOUR video in the opening post. It is clear beyond any doubt that the footage you snidely claimed was doctored has not been because the same clear parabola rises (nowhere near the soles of his boots!) to the same height and obviously at the same time.

Explain why you ignored this and reasserted your claim point #3 above?



2. Your useless "physics" about "suction-cups" and the attractive force "adhesion" are not even close to accurate or relevant for this scenario. The forum can see you squirming on this with no honest intent to answer with any integrity.

Time up = time down - we see time up very clearly, explain why you keep evading this obvious evidence?


3. In that 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.

Does your "100% integrity allow you to even answer this(!) let alone admit it?

4. Both my volleyball gifs showed on very clear modern video that sand can appear to disperse very fast. It is merely hard to see sand on sand. For Apollo, not only is the footage far more grainier and lower quality it;s darker with grey against grey.

Explain why you have not honestly acknowledged this, preferring to find instances where conditions are more favourable also on modern clear footage?

5. The following Gene Cernan gif was presented to and ignored. It shows that the same soil impact occurs at landing on 3 jumps.

Why have you ignored this? Please don't insult everyone with some bollocks about coincidence.



6. For the last of the 3 Cernan jumps, we clearly see the dust coming down in a wave as the final impact occurs. Your explanation for this was crap about how long the ground mark occurred for. Irrelevant given the nature of the camera and discolouration of the soil. Here's better footage and clearer footage below.

How is this clearly not very solid proof the soil ISN'T too falling too fast?



7. This last one is concerns very much your "100% integrity". I don't know if you've ever seen somebody kick dirt around but a little sideways flick of the boot, on Earth, simply does not do what we are seeing. The dust-flick from the side of his boot (adjusted for Earth speed) is an absurd >7m per second force and rising to 1.25m high. In addition to your hand waving you also suggested without evidence that the footage was speed adjusted around the event. Very irrelevant given that this is absurdly unreal for Earth freefall and action.

Explain to the forum how you can possibly suggest does this on Earth, that height, distance and speed? In addition, notice how the astronauts are exhibiting comedic motion when adjusted.
Lunar footage:


Adjusted +245% for Earth speed:



I will approach the moderator if you do not give satisfactory responses to these questions.

[onebigmonkey]

#1: You keep calling it a thick cloud of dust. It is not. It is a spray of material. Any material above his boots was launched there by his boot.
#2: Your claims that it falls faster than an astronaut, and that it has been added afterwards, are simply that: claims.
#3: The point of the  live TV sequence is that it recorded a photography session. Those photographs show the regolith in motion. Are they doctored?

#1: Call it what you will - it was a thick volume of dust to the right of his boot AHEAD of his boot -- indicating a faster launch velocity...  Do you see this?

There is a collection of surface material that is launched by the toe of Young's boot as he jumps. You can clearly see his toe go forward digging in the ground as he braces his knee to jump. Dust implies a specific particle size. "Thick volume" implies a substantial quantity. There is no cloud of 'dust' indicating any impedance from an atmosphere. Ever.

#2: "Added afterwards"?  The MLH claim is that this could be explained by a cable lifting up about 50% of Young's weight.  Thus the dust falls faster than Young.

The dust falls at a rate consistent with lunar gravity, as does Young.

You claimed it is absent from footage and that implied it was added afterwards:

" I'm making a deal that his footage may have been modified ("enhanced" they might say) to show dust between the feet, whereas on the NASA footage it's not evident at all."

It was always visible. It is visible in the original photos taken by Duke. The quality isn't the best, but material can be seen obscuring the LM shadow in my original copies:

https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/ephemera/AWST/AWST_May_15_72.pdf

https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/ephemera/photos/apollo/a16/spacearts-4.pdf

and this one:

http://stellar-views.com/images/AS16_Young_Flag.jpg

I've attached a crop from the March to the Moon and Flickr sources to illustrate the point. The video and photographs were not enhanced to add detail, there just exist different quality copies of the footage. You would not be the first of your ilk to claim that details were altered later to mask something that was discovered by "researchers". You would not be the first to be wrong about it.

As for it falling faster than Young, you would need to specifically identify exactly the particles you consider to have done this. What I see is some particles given added momentum from his boot that rise higher, some that have less added momentum that do not. I also see it becoming more difficult to see as it spreads out.

#3: I am unfamiliar with what proof you are referring to that you believe was "non-feasible to fake".  Show me a link, and we can assess.

What I'm pointing out to you is that the few seconds of footage you are fixating on exist within a wider context: an EVA several hours long broadcast on live TV. I even showed you a newspaper front page demonstrating that it was seen on Earth at the time. For Young to have been suspended on a harness, there would need to be a harness attachment, several harness wires, harness operators, all operating in a huge film set broadcasting signals detected from the moon and featuring views of Earth.

[onebigmonkey]

This seems like good time to post links to the two still photos of the jump salutes, plus the ground elapsed times, dialogue, and comments in the Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal:
AS16-113-18339HR
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18339HR.jpg

Your timing was immaculate, thanks.  This high resolution photo shows no "dust parabola" between the feet - here we see no dust at all, at apex.

What do you think this is?

[Mag40]

This seems like good time to post links to the two still photos of the jump salutes, plus the ground elapsed times, dialogue, and comments in the Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal:
AS16-113-18339HR
https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/history/alsj/a16/AS16-113-18339HR.jpg

Your timing was immaculate, thanks.  This high resolution photo shows no "dust parabola" between the feet - here we see no dust at all, at apex.

What do you think this is?

Snap!

[najak]

What do you think this is?

Sand splatter on the ground; NOT between his feet.  The sand that rose with John, is already on the ground, splattering.

Note the "thickness at the ground" - this is what a "splash pattern" looks like -- this isn't what "dust in process of falling" looks like -- so it's already landed, and is splashing back up a small amount.

So it's NOT "dust between the feet at apex"... which was your favorite (false?) claim.   It only shows up in your version of the video -- not in this photo, nor in the NASA linked video.  Your video simply looks "enhanced/modified" to make it look like dust is there... when this may not be the case at all.

[Mag40]

What do you think this is?

Sand splatter on the ground; NOT between his feet.  The sand that rose with John, is already on the ground, splattering.

Here is a screen-print from the second jump where Young's launch has virtually no displacement.


Splatter? What splatter? Where did it go?

Answer my post please!

[najak]

What I'm pointing out to you is that the few seconds of footage you are fixating on exist within a wider context: an EVA several hours long broadcast on live TV. I even showed you a newspaper front page demonstrating that it was seen on Earth at the time. For Young to have been suspended on a harness, there would need to be a harness attachment, several harness wires, harness operators, all operating in a huge film set broadcasting signals detected from the moon and featuring views of Earth.

The dust above the toe at apex seems to be a good one to consider.

Here's my thoughts:
1. First photo in this sequence shows NO DUST above the foot.
2. So we should assume that for the 2nd sequence photo, that at BEST, it was launched at the Apex by a toe jerk?  If it were launched from the start-- it would have showed up in the prior photo.

If launched at apex... then the dust flew that distance in < 0.1 second...  Which is long before earth's gravity could have much effect.  (0.5 * accel * t-Squared, where t-squared is only 0.01).

So the trajectory of dust launched on Earth vs. Moon after 0.1 second is less than 2-inches different.   Not enough to discern the actual gravity influencing it.


The first photo in this sequence:

[Mag40]

The dust above the toe at apex seems to be a good one to consider.

All the dust is ejected forwards. Your photogrammetry "skills" are puny.

Here's my thoughts:
1. First photo in this sequence shows NO DUST above the foot.

Go and answer post 154 - or are you unable to? You make all this rhetoric in the launch thread and are doing far worse here!

2. So we should assume

We assume you have no photogrammetry skills and are evading things that show you are hopelessly wrong.

If launched at apex

Grey on grey, lower and dispersed.

Did you really just run away from the question? Where is the ground splatter?

[najak]

@Mag40:  Would you like to meet me somewhere neutral?  Of all the people commenting here so much, you seem to me to have the most questionable qualifications and skillset.  Let's put this debate in front of a physics-minded crowd, and get some added feedback.  Otherwise, you are just "barking" from the comfort/safety of your own support group and echo chamber here.

We've beat this horse to a pulp.  There is nothing new being said.  We don't agree.  I believe my logic is better than yours.  You believe otherwise.  This is an impasse.  Please act like an adult and simply realize that it's time to cease wasting time producing zero fruit.  You are just "barking" now, saying nothing new.

[Mag40]

@Mag40:  Would you like to meet me somewhere neutral?  Of all the people commenting here so much, you seem to me to have the most questionable qualifications and skillset.

Then instead of continued snide remarks, answer the detailed post at the top of this page. It should be easy for you. You've evaded it "to a pulp" and posited ridiculous crap about "suction cups", "adhesion", large clumps of dirt - everything but the items detailed above.

Your "photogrammetry" skills didn't notice that the regolith was projected forwards?

Where has the ground splatter gone?

My "questionable qualifications and skillset" is kicking your butt.

[najak]

Your "photogrammetry" skills didn't notice that the regolith was projected forwards?

Please detail how you've concluded that this dust is "only forward" and not upwards at all?

The way I see this, I'd guess it to be upwards at least at 30 degrees.   Not straight forward.

But I'm wondering what other photographic cues do we have to determine this angle of launch?

And one thing we do see from this is that the photo just 0.3 second earlier -- has NO DUST AT ALL.... which supports the notion of a "top of apex launch"... which would produce about the same resulting photo either on Moon or Earth... because the difference in gravity takes more than 0.1 second to produce more than 2 inchces of variation.